Opinion ID: 2617645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the district court properly dismissed the racketeering claim

Text: The Spences argue that they sufficiently pleaded a claim for state and federal racketeering in their complaint, and therefore it was error for the district court to dismiss the claim. The Spences did not plead a federal violation of the racketeering statutes in their complaint, or at any time below, and we therefore do not consider that aspect of their claim on review. This Court has not addressed the sufficiency of a pleading of a state racketeering violation, however the Court of Appeals has noted that I.C. § 18-7803(d) requires the plaintiff to come forward with evidence, or plead facts, that demonstrate the requisite pattern of racketeering activity. Eliopulos v. Knox, 123 Idaho 400, 408, 848 P.2d 984, 992 (1992). The Spences' case is similar to Eliopulos. The Spences' amended complaint only alleges one general scheme of racketeering, the purpose of which was to defraud the Spences out of their ranch. The district court noted that although a single scheme may be sufficient to establish a pattern of activity, the plaintiff must show that the predicate acts themselves amount to, or constitute a threat of, continuing racketeering activity. Id. [5] The amended complaint did not allege a pattern of racketeering which would meet the requirements of I.C. § 18-7803(d). Further, the record demonstrates that the Spences did not really allege even one incident of racketeering, and they certainly did not allege two. The primary evidence that the Spences proposed in support of their racketeering allegation was a copy of a verified complaint from a lawsuit for fraud against a corporation owned by the appellants. The verified complaint pertains to the same easement previously discussed in Section IV that Howell allegedly obtained fraudulently from the Spences' neighbors. Even assuming the court should have allowed this testimony and evidence, it still pertains to the same single activity of defrauding the Spences and developing the land for hydroelectric purposes, and therefore is not evidence of two or more incidents of racketeering activity. We find no error in the district court's dismissal of the racketeering count in the amended complaint.