dismissing plaintiff’s RICO conspiracy claim after finding that plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of mail and wire fraud, because “[w]here a RICO conspiracy claim is based on predicate acts that have been dismissed by the court, the conspiracy claim ‘must be dismissed as well.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- dismissing plaintiff’s RICO conspiracy claim after finding that plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of mail and wire fraud, because “[w]here a RICO conspiracy claim is based on predicate acts that have been dismissed by the court, the conspiracy claim ‘must be dismissed as well.’ ”
- ‘Where multiple defendants are involved, the complaint is required to describe specifically each defendant’s alleged participation in the fraud.” (citing DiVittorio, 822 F.2d at 1247)
- electing not to decide defendants’ personal jurisdiction motions before dismissing case fox forum non conveniens
- “Even though defendant . . . did not enter an appearance in this case or join in the motion to dismiss, sua sponte dismissal with respect to him is appropriately considered if the issues are substantially the same as those concerning the other defendants, and plaintiff had notice and full opportunity to make out its claim against [the non-appearing defendant].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Buchwald’s Opinion and Order dated February 25, 2000. We see no error in the district court’s ruling that the amended complaint failed to state a claim against defendant WEB Management LLC; without reference to whether the court had jurisdiction over the other defendants, we see no abuse of discretion in the court’s dismissal of the claims against them on the ground of forum non conveniens.
We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.