Basic Energy Servs., LP v. Pierce

1 Citing case

  1. Smith v. Chapman

    DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00238-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that "a dispute between friends-turned business colleagues" was garden variety fraud and did not implicate RICO

    The court first notes that such a holding is not binding on this court, and in fact, has found disfavor in other courts (also not binding on this court). See, e.g., Basic Energy Servs., LP v. Pierce, No. CV-09-31-BLG-RFC, 2013 WL 1390382, at *5 (D. Mont. Apr. 4, 2013) ("Van Hook is correct that the Second Amended complaint does not allege he personally committed any predicate acts. Accordingly, Count Nine, alleging a violation of § 1962(c) claim, must be dismissed as it relates to Van Hook."); Blake v. Dierdorf, 856 F.2d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir.1988) (dismissing RICO claim against a particular defendant where complaint "failed to allege adequately two or more predicate acts which would support a RICO claim"); Lakonia Mgmt. Ltd. v. Meriwether, 106 F. Supp. 2d 540, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("To plead a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' plaintiff must establish that each defendant committed at least two acts of racketeering—or two 'predicate acts'—within a ten-year period.") (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)).