Opinion ID: 197458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of the RICO claim.

Text: 11 Ahmed argues that the district court wrongly concluded that he failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a RICO violation. We begin by briefly reviewing the well established requirements for such a claim. 12 A RICO plaintiff must allege a pattern of racketeering activity involving at least two predicate acts, the second of which must occur within 10 years of the first. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Predicate acts under this statute are acts indictable under any one or more of certain specified laws, including the mail and wire fraud statutes. See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 42; see also McEvoy, 904 F.2d at 788. Furthermore, a RICO plaintiff must allege the existence of an enterprise, which the statute defines as including: any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Ahmed's complaint fails to establish any of these three requirements with sufficient detail to survive summary judgment. 13 Turning first to predicate acts, we previously have noted [i]t is not enough for a plaintiff to file a RICO action, chant the statutory mantra, and leave the identification of predicate acts to the time of trial. See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 42. Ahmed's pleading contains only the bald assertion that the defendants (unspecified) used the U.S. mails to fraudulently convey their interests in Ahmed's properties, that the defendants (again unspecified) used the U.S. Postal Service by mailing unspecified materials, and that the defendants used wire communications. 14 Despite well settled law in this circuit that RICO pleadings of mail and wire fraud must satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), see Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 42; New England Data Services, Inc. v. Becher, 829 F.2d 286, 290 (1st Cir.1987), and that under 9(b), a pleader must state the time, place and content of the alleged mail and wire communications perpetrating that fraud, see Becher, 829 F.2d at 291, Ahmed's complaint supplies no times, places, or contents. The record is similarly devoid of evidence which would support Ahmed's contentions. He has therefore failed to show the required predicate acts. 15 Failure to plead predicate acts adequately is enough to sink his RICO claim. We nonetheless briefly consider the other RICO elements. Following the Supreme Court's lead in H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 238, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 2900, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989), we have held that a plaintiff seeking to establish a RICO pattern must show that the predicate acts are related and that they amount to or pose the threat of continued criminal activity (the continuity requirement). See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 44; see also McEvoy, 904 F.2d at 788. 16 In order to demonstrate relatedness, the predicate acts must have the same or similar purposes, participants, victims, or methods, or otherwise be interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and not be isolated events. See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 44; see also Fleet Credit Corp. v. Sion, 893 F.2d 441, 445 (1st Cir.1990). Ahmed's minimal assertions do not permit us to realistically assess the purposes, participants, or methods of the alleged acts to determine their relatedness. 17 In supporting the continuity prong of the pattern requirement, a plaintiff must show either that the related predicates amounted to continued criminal activity or that there was, even though the predicate acts did not span a significant time, a threat or realistic prospect of continued activity in time yet to come. See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 45. Here, absent sufficient allegations of both predicate acts and relatedness, the amounted to threshold has not been reached. Similarly, the threat approach is unavailable; there is no allegation that, after the attempted foreclosure, such conduct was an ongoing entity's way of doing business. 18 Finally, on the enterprise element, Ahmed fails to allege that the defendants were together part of any legal entity, and again, the complaint's mere allegation that an enterprise existed does nothing to support that claim or demonstrate how the defendants were purportedly associated in fact. We therefore must conclude that Ahmed failed to make his case on this point as well. 19 Because Ahmed failed to establish any of the three necessary elements of a RICO claim, the district court properly dismissed his complaint. 20