Opinion ID: 772567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of the Claim Against William Rosen

Text: 254 In their cross-appeal, the plaintiffs claim error in the District Court's dismissal of the case against William Rosen. On October 17, 1996, reviewing the plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the District Court dismissed the action against William Rosen for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (JA:285-303). The District Court concluded, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164 (1994), that RICO does not provide for aider-and-abettor liability. The District Court concluded that the plaintiffs' second amended complaint stated only an aider-and-abettor claim against Rosen and, accordingly, dismissed the action against him. 255 The plaintiffs do not challenge the District Court's conclusion that there is no cause of action for aider-and-abettor liability under RICO. Rather, they argue that the complaint stated a direct claim against Rosen. We disagree. 256 In the defendants subsection of the second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that Rosen used his power and influence as Town and County Attorney in furtherance of the conspiracy described herein and aided and abetted the defendants in their extortionate obtainment of money and property belonging to the plaintiffs. (JA:222) (emphasis added). 25 Moreover, in the section alleging each defendant's predicate acts, the first act charged against Rosen states that he aided and abettedthe defendants in their extortionate scheme... [and] rendered substantial assistance to the defendants.... (JA:270) (emphasis added). The second act charged relates to disclosures that Rosen allegedly failed to make in connection with certain covenants on an adjacent parcel upon which the defendants threatened to build a garbage facility. (JA:271). Although those allegations do not expressly include aider and abettor language, earlier in the complaint all of Rosen's actions are described as being in aid of the enterprise. Thus, all of Rosen's acts were pled as aiding the alleged RICO enterprise and the District Court properly dismissed the claim against Rosen. 257