holding that the Plaintiff could not establish a pattern of racketeering by allegations that legal organizations committed three predicate acts of mail and wire fraud in obtaining a single federal grant to defray costs of opposing a ballet initiative
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Plaintiff could not establish a pattern of racketeering by allegations that legal organizations committed three predicate acts of mail and wire fraud in obtaining a single federal grant to defray costs of opposing a ballet initiative
- finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss because "[d]iscovery is only appropriate where there are factual issues raised by a Rule 12(b) motion"
- noting 6 district court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery during pendency of motion to 7 dismiss when plaintiff’s claims did not raise factual issues that “required discovery for their 8 resolution”
- affirming stay of discovery without discussing whether court was convinced plaintiff could not state a claim before entering stay
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PATEL, District Judge,
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result reached in Judge Hug’s opinion. However, as to the RICO claim, I do not believe it is necessary to put appellant’s complaint through the consuming “pattern of racketeering activity” analysis under Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 , 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). Plaintiffs cannot state a RICO claim for one clear reason. They were not injured in their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).
Injury to business or property does not include personal damages, Drake v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 782 F.2d 638, 644 (6th Cir.1986), or political damages. RICO is intended to permit private actions solely for damages of a business or proprietary nature. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 741 F.2d 511, 515 (2d Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 473 U.S. 922 , 105 S.Ct. 3550 , 87 L.Ed.2d 673 (1985).
The injury allegations made here are strictly of a political and personal nature and, therefore, outside the purview of RICO. I would affirm for this reason alone.