Court Opinion

ID: 9804040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:16:58.602704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:03:49.955096
License: Public Domain

SUTTON, J.,
concurring.
I join all of the majority opinion but part V. As to that, I agree with the majority that the district court’s decision denying Slorp leave to add a civil RICO claim should be reversed. As the majority explains, the district court erred by concluding that Slorp suffered no cognizable injury, and that mistaken conclusion was the reason it denied leave to amend as futile. Rather than proceed to address the potential viability of other RICO claims in this setting, I would leave it at that, and let the district court address those claims in the first instance.