Court Opinion

ID: 9479575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:22:05.380936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:07.514372
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In our decision in this case on October 23, 1989, we affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the cause to the district court, which had previously dismissed all three of the plaintiffs’ claims. We affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ first claim under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. We reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ second claim, a securities action under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. We also reversed the judgment on the plaintiffs’ third claim, a RICO action under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. We then remanded the securities and RICO claims to the district court for further proceedings.
Since we rendered our opinion, it has been brought to our attention that the plaintiffs judicially have admitted that the RICO case they alleged and had hoped to prove cannot satisfy the Supreme Court’s new test for “pattern” in RICO violations set forth in H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). A remand on this now mooted claim is thus unnecessary. We therefore modify our previous ruling and affirm the district court’s dismissal of the RICO claim. In all other respects our previous ruling is unchanged, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the securities claim only.