Opinion ID: 616365
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Properly Plead Mail and Wire Fraud

Text: Finally, we note that Plaintiffs' failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) in alleging mail and wire fraud also provided an independent basis for dismissal. See Nitro Distrib., 565 F.3d at 428-29 (noting that the plaintiff's RICO claim was properly dismissed for failure to set forth the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud with particularity required under Rule 9(b) where the complaint allege[d] in very general terms that [the defendant] engaged in racketeering that `involved the use of the interstate telephone and the U.S. mails on a number of occasions'). As the district court observed in the present case: The Complaint does not identify [the who, what, when, where, and how] with respect to a single allegation of mail or wire fraud; in fact the Complaint fails to specify a single date with respect to any such allegation. The proposed additions are better but still lacking with respect to specifically identifying the who, where, when and how of the mail and wire fraud, the predicate acts of the RICO claim,.... Crest Constr., 2010 WL 3456690, at . Because the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, Walker, 650 F.3d at 1203, we affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs' RICO claim.