Opinion ID: 4468300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Open‐ended Continuity

Text: Grace also fails to allege open‐ended continuity. There are two ways to show open‐ended continuity – (1) “where the acts of the defendant or the enterprise [are] inherently unlawful, such as murder or obstruction of justice, and [are] in pursuit of inherently unlawful goals, such as narcotics trafficking or embezzlement,” United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102, 1111 (2d Cir. 1995), or (2) “where the enterprise primarily conducts a legitimate business” but there is “some evidence from which it may be inferred that the predicate acts were the regular way of operating that business, or that the nature of the predicate acts themselves implies a threat of continued criminal activity,” Cofacredit, 187 F.3d at 243 (citing H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 243). The allegation of a scheme that was inherently 7 terminable does not plausibly imply a threat of continued racketeering activity. Id. at 244 Grace has failed to allege the first type of open‐ended continuity, which primarily targets organized crime. See Reich v. Lopez, 858 F.3d 55, 60 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 282 (2017) (“Even if [the defendant] pays bribes, it is primarily in the energy business; it is not a narcotics ring or an organized crime family.”). And Grace fares no better in establishing open‐ended continuity under the second method. Although Grace conclusorily alleges that the predicate acts were the means by which Falcon, a construction company, “regularly operated,” AC ¶ 241, it points only to its own limited interactions with Festa in support of that contention, AC ¶ 241. At best, Grace alleges conclusorily and speculatively that the “nature of the predicate acts implied a threat of continuing activity” because “[t]he Project remained incomplete and similar predicate acts could continue to occur,” AC ¶ 242, since the contract was only “38.5% complete,” AC ¶ 243. But Grace’s speculative claims regarding how long the fraud would continue do not, on their own, support a showing of open‐ended continuity. See GICC Capital Corp., 67 F.3d at 466 (rejecting claim that defendant would have continued scheme had plaintiff not commenced litigation on the grounds it was “entirely speculative”). 8 Even accepting that the project remained unfinished, Grace’s construction project was ultimately terminable, and Grace has offered no other facts to suggest the activities would continue in the future. While Grace attempts to magnify the racketeering scheme by expanding the number of victims and predicate acts, in reality this is one scheme with one clear victim. That is clearly insufficient to establish a pattern for the purposes of RICO. See Crawford, 758 F.3d at 489 (“[M]ultiple acts of mail fraud in furtherance of a single episode of fraud involving one victim and relating to one basic transaction cannot constitute the necessary pattern.”) (quoting Tellis v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 826 F.2d 477, 478 (7th Cir. 1986)). We have considered Grace’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 9