Opinion ID: 622342
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extortion Allegations

Text: The plaintiffs also argue that the district court incorrectly held that they had failed to properly allege any instance of extortion in their third amended complaint. A plaintiff claiming a Hobbs Act violation of extortion as a predicate act in a civil RICO claim must establish that the defendant obstruct[ed], delay[ed], or affect[ed] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by ... extortion or attempt[ed] or conspir[ed] so to do, or committ[ed] or threaten[ed] physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do [so]. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Extortion is defined as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). The concept of extortion is not limited to fear of physical violence. Under the fear of economic harm theory, a private citizen can commit extortion by leading the victim to believe that the perpetrator can exercise his or her power to the victim's economic detriment. See United States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817, 826 (6th Cir.2006). [T]he fear of economic harm may arise independently of any action by the defendant, . . . [i]t is enough if the fear exists and the defendant intentionally exploits it. United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504, 1513-14 (6th Cir.1991). The perpetrator's threats or exploitation of a victim's fear must also be wrongful to constitute extortion. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). Thus, to properly claim acts of extortion in this case, the plaintiffs must allege facts and circumstances that show (1) that the defendants obtained the plaintiffs' property (2) through the wrongful use of (3) threats or fear of physical or economic harm. The Flennikens allege they were victims of criminal extortion when the couple learned that defendants Boraggina and Beauvais had requested that the Guatemalan attorney stop work on the adoption of the baby the couple was pursuing until the remainder of the adoption fees was paid. The plaintiffs labeled this conduct emotional terrorism but did not allege that they paid any money in response to this alleged threat. This claim does not amount to actionable extortion because the plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants obtained property as the result of this alleged threat. By statutory definition, extortion requires the victim to be deprived of property and the perpetrator to obtain that property. Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 405, 123 S.Ct. 1057, 154 L.Ed.2d 991 (2003). At most, the Flennikens have alleged that the defendants threatened them with emotional distress, which is insufficient to support a claim of extortion. The Tavolillas also allege they were subject to extortion. Their claim centers around the allegation that while they were still considering adopting baby Marvin but before their physician had completed his review of his medical records, they were contacted by defendant Boraggina. She advised them to begin the adoption process immediately, before their physician completed his review of the baby's health records, claiming He's gonna go! In response, the couple wired $16,000 to the defendants and began the adoption process, only to discover shortly thereafter that the baby suffered from serious health problems. These allegations show that Boraggina created a sense of urgency surrounding the start of the adoption process, but they do not establish that it was wrongful. First, the Tavolillas do not allege any additional facts or circumstances that would provide grounds to conclude that this sense of urgency was not warranted i.e., that there was little chance that baby Marvin would soon become unavailable. So plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that this urgency was wrongful in the sense that it was false. Moreover, if we characterize the interaction between the plaintiffs and the defendants as a business transaction in which defendants are selling adoption services, the loss of the chance to adopt baby Marvin would place the Tavolillas in fear of an economic harm, which, if improperly exploited, could amount to extortion. See United States v. Collins, 78 F.3d 1021, 1030-31 (6th Cir.1996) (finding that the possibility of lost business opportunities is a type of economic fear within the scope of extortion). But this fear and any sense of urgency created by Boraggina was not wrongful in the sense that it was unreasonable or unfair under the circumstances. In the business context, Boraggina's behavior is best characterized as hard bargaining or a pressure sales tactic. See Mathon v. Feldstein, 303 F.Supp.2d 317, 325 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (finding that hard bargaining does not constitute extortion). On the other hand, if we consider the adoption process to be something other than a business transaction, the Tavolillas have not shown that they were placed in fear of an economic harm. Now, the loss of the opportunity to adopt baby Marvin would not be considered a lost business opportunity. Instead, the sense of urgency would have placed the Tavolillas in fear of purely emotional harmfear that they would regret missing the chance to adopt baby Marvin. The plaintiffs do not cite any case in which the concept of extortion includes the exploitation of the fear of purely emotional harm, such as the distress one would likely experience if a hoped for adoption was lost. For these reasons, we conclude the Tavolillas have not adequately alleged facts that might give rise to a plausible claim of extortion. The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants frequently advertised children on the Waiting Angels website who they knew or should have known were unavailable for adoption and that this conduct amounted to extortion. They argue that the defendants would play upon people's desire to adopt these children, wrongfully, to excise additional adoption fees from them. Setting aside the fact that this allegation was not pled in their complaint, it also is without merit. The use of a website to advertise children as available for adoption, who are actually unavailable, does not constitute a threat nor induce fear of economic, or even emotional harm. On the contrary, as the plaintiffs acknowledge, the sight of many children supposedly available for adoption on the Waiting Angels website would inspire hope, not fear, that a couple would ultimately find a child they could successfully adopt. The alleged unavailability of children on the Waiting Angels website is a claim that the defendants committed frauda claim discussed and dismissed earliernot that they committed extortion. In summary, the plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege any predicate acts of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act in their third amended complaint.