Opinion ID: 715406
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Provided by PG & E

Text: 56 The main problem with PG & E's evidence is that it fails to establish the continuity element that is required for the RICO claim. PG & E offered the following evidence at trial: 57 (1) Fischbach's invitation to Foley to join the group. In support of this contention, PG & E notes Brown's testimony that he travelled with Charles Berrell, his boss, to Salt Lake City in 1965 to meet Jerry Littman, manager of Fischbach's San Francisco office, and Francis Kellstrom, Fischbach's president, regarding the Shell Oil refinery job. 58 (2) Brown's testimony that Berrell, Matthew Kammenzind of Lord Electric and Hank Dias of Contra Costa Electric urged him to cooperate with the group of Bay Area managers and play by its rules. PG & E notes that this group included Fischbach. 59 (3) Korman's phone call to Brown asking him if he would go along and telling him they could work something out. 60 (4) Korman's trial testimony that (a) as soon as he arrived in San Francisco, he was invited to a meeting with branch managers from the five national contractors at the Walnut Creek Inn to discuss the allocation of jobs and (b) another meeting with a similar agenda took place in Benecia. 61 (5) The Brown-Kleinhoff and Brown-Kammenzind phone calls discussing payoffs and cooperating with one another. 62 (6) Rick Erwin's testimony that the enterprise continued into the late 1970s and possibly into the early 1980s and that he was present when competitors negotiated jobs. 63 From this evidence, a reasonable juror could not find that Fischbach's alleged acts amounted to or threatened a continuing criminal activity. At most, PG & E has presented circumstantial evidence of suspect conduct that does not amount to a pattern of racketeering in violation of RICO. Upon making a fact-specific inquiry of the record, we find that although the few instances that PG & E allege may be sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find Sherman Antitrust Act violations, they do not suffice to meet RICO's pattern requirement. 64 The district court accurately found that PG & E failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a RICO claim.