Opinion
No. C-01-0958 VRW
March 22, 2001
ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Pursuant to Civil LR 3-10, the application of plaintiff Kofi Opong-Mensah to proceed in forma pauperis is before the court for review. The court has considered the application and has carefully reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). The court hereby ORDERS that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED because the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff attempts unsuccessfully to allege two causes of action. In Count I, plaintiff seeks damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. Plaintiff, however, has failed to plead adequately one of the crucial elements of a proper RICO claim. "[A] RICO complaint must identify the enterprise." Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel LP, 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995). While a RICO enterprise can be formal or informal, some type of organizational structure is required. Id. at 645. A RICO enterprise is "a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct," which is shown "by evidence of an ongoing organizations formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit." United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981). Plaintiff, quite simply, has failed to plead that defendants were a group of persons associated for a common purpose. Identification of a string of individuals, such as defendants, is not sufficient to plead an enterprise. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff fails to state a RICO claim upon which relief may be granted.
With respect to Count II, plaintiff alleges claims for wrongful termination and misrepresentation. The statute of limitations for each of these claims, however, expired long before plaintiff filed the present complaint. The statute of limitations for wrongful termination is one year. Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc, 43 Cal App. 4th 1200, 1203, 51 Cal Rptr.2d 328 (1996); Cal CCP § 340(3). The statute of limitations for misrepresentation claims is three years. Cal CCP § 338. The conduct upon which these claims are based allegedly took place during the first few months of 1996, over three years before plaintiff filed his complaint. To be sure, the court recognizes that claims based on fraud, such as these two claims, only accrue once the plaintiff discovers the facts constituting the fraud and "every element of the cause[s] of action [are] in place, including damages." Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc, 48 Cal App. 4th 471, 483-84, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225 (1996). Plaintiff asserts in a conclusory manner that he did not know of the fraud until March 15, 2000. Compl, ¶ 43. But plaintiff alleges elsewhere in his complaint that his employment was terminated "in or about 1996." Id, ¶ 31. At the time of plaintiff's termination, he must have known that his employer no longer intended to "provide Plaintiff with training opportunities that could lead to promotion and increased compensation" — the alleged misrepresentation. See id, ¶ 41. Accordingly, the court concludes that, assuming the truth of plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff's fraud claims accrued in 1996. Cal CCP § 338. The statute of limitations for these two claims thus expired. As a result, the court finds that plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to close the file and terminate all pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.