Opinion ID: 626814
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Panel Decision and Waiver

Text: At the district court, the plaintiffs' only argument about the nature of their injury was that Brown III held that they had alleged loss of property. Brown IV, 743 F.Supp.2d at 671 n. 15 (quoting Plaintiffs' Response to Cassens Mot. to Dismiss). The plaintiffs are incorrect. Brown III stated: Each of the plaintiffs has also sufficiently pleaded that they were injured by the defendants' pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because the defendants' fraud deprived the plaintiffs of worker's compensation benefits and caused them to incur attorney fees and medical care expenses. Brown III, 546 F.3d at 355-56. This sentence does not specifically state that the plaintiffs alleged an injury to property, an issue that was not before the panel in Brown III. Nevertheless, this issue presents an appropriate circumstance for exercising our discretion to reach an issue not raised below. Lockhart v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251, 261 (6th Cir.2009). Ordinarily, an issue that is not raised in the district court is not considered on appeal unless the question is presented with sufficient clarity and completeness for us to resolve the matter without further development of the record. United States v. Lucas, 640 F.3d 168, 173 (6th Cir.2011). This issue is presented with clarity and completeness. The district court relegated waiver to a footnote and analyzed the merits of the issue for four pages. All of the parties have briefed the issue at length, and it is purely a question of law. Lockhart, 573 F.3d at 261. We therefore consider whether the plaintiffs have alleged an injury to property.