When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir.2002); see also 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 532–33 (S.D.N.Y.2014). II.
. Stated differently, where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to hold the corporation itself liable as a RICO “person,” the RICO “enterprise” may not then “consist solely of the corporation plus its owners and/or employees.” 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). The distinctness requirement may be met, however, where a plaintiff “alleges a corporation itself to be the RICO ‘enterprise,' with its owners or employees being the RICO ‘persons' conducting the affairs of the corporation through a pattern of racketeering activities.” 4 K & D Corp., 2 F.Supp.3d at 536 (citing Cedric Kushner Promotions, 533 U.S. at 163).
” SkyMed. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Servs., Inc., 17 F.Supp.3d 207, 230 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, Inc., 897 F.2d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1990)). As such, a RICO conspiracy claim will be dismissed where the plaintiff alleges “no facts to show specifically that the defendants had any ‘meeting of the minds' in the alleged violations.” 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Conclusory allegations that the defendants “agreed to commit” the violations are insufficient.
"To establish a ‘pattern’ of racketeering activity, a plaintiff must plead ‘at least two predicate acts, and show that the predicate acts are related, and that they amount to, or pose a threat of, continuing criminal activity.’ " 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F. Supp. 3d 525, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 97 (2d Cir. 1997) ). "Predicate acts are ‘related’ for RICO purposes when they ‘have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.’ "
To state a violation of § 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege: "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) though a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F. Supp. 3d 525, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 306 (2d Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only the "pattern" element is relevant here.
Where, as here, “ ‘a plaintiff in a RICO claim alleges racketeering activity based on the predicate acts of violating the mail or wire fraud statutes, he or she must prove three elements: (1) scheme to defraud, including proof of intent; (2) money or property as object of scheme; (3) use of mails or wires to further the scheme.’ ” 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 539 (S.D.N.Y.2014) (quoting City of N.Y. v. Cyco.Net, Inc., 383 F.Supp.2d 526, 552 (S.D.N.Y.2005). Courts have repeatedly warned against attempts by plaintiffs “ ‘to mold their claims to the RICO form even though their injuries do not fall within those intended to be addressed by the Act.’ ”
When a plaintiff alleges fraud as a predicate for a RICO claim, Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint “specify the statements it claims were false or misleading, give particulars as to the respect in which plaintiffs contend the statements were fraudulent, state when and where the statements were made, and identify those responsible for the statements.'” Babb v. Capitalsource, Inc., 588 Fed.Appx. 66, 68 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 189 F.3d 165, 173 (2d Cir. 1999)); see also 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 537-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (same).
K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, Section 1962(b) makes it “unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity ... to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b).
RCA Trademark Mgmt. S.A.S. v. VOXX Int'l Corp., No. 14-CV-6294 (LTS) (HBP), 2015 WL 5008762, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015) (citation omitted). It is well-established that a “single shot transaction involving complex arrangements, knowledgeable and experienced parties and large sums of money is not a consumer-oriented transaction.” 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 2 F.Supp.3d 525, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases) (cleaned up).
Particularly when compared with the robust caselaw regarding Section 1962(c), there are fewer cases addressing the requirements of a claim under Section 1962(a). A sister court in this District has explained that "[t]o state a claim under [ Section] 1962(a), a plaintiff must allege ‘[i] that the defendants used or invested racketeering income to acquire or maintain an interest in the alleged enterprise; and [ii] that the plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of that investment by the defendants.’ " 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLC , 2 F. Supp. 3d 525, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting R.C.M. Exec. Gallery Corp. v. Rols Cap. Co. , 901 F. Supp. 630, 642 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ). Another frequently cited decision from the Eastern District of New York teaches that: