Opinion ID: 626814
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allegations of Enterprise

Text: [A] corporation cannot be both the `enterprise' and the `person' conducting or participating in the affairs of that enterprise.... [A] corporation may not be liable under section 1962(c) for participating in the affairs of an enterprise that consists only of its own subdivisions, agents, or members. [14] Begala v. PNC Bank, Ohio, N.A., 214 F.3d 776, 781 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145, 121 S.Ct. 1082, 148 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). This principle is known as the non-identity or distinctness requirement. Id. Also, a plaintiff may plead in the alternative and the pleading is sufficient if any one of [the theories that the plaintiff pleads] is sufficient. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(2). The alleged enterprise consists of Cassens and Crawford, or Cassens, Crawford, and Dr. Margules. R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 20). Crawford and Cassens can comprise an enterprise on their own because Crawford act[ed] as an agent for, or in concert with, Cassens. R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 18) (emphasis added). Moreover, the plaintiffs' allegations suggest that Dr. Margules is a distinct actor with whom the other defendants have a long-standing business relationship. Id. ¶ 11; see also Appellee Margules Br. at 29 ([The complaint] establishes that Dr. Margules was in practice for himself.). Therefore, the allegations satisfy the distinctness requirement. Moreover, the complaint meets Twombly 's plausibility standard. The complaint alleges that the Defendants expressly or implied[ly] communicated to Dr. Margules that [they] wanted him to write reports stating plaintiff was not disabled due to work-related injuries, regardless of the true circumstances. R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 12). Thus, the plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded the existence of an enterprise.