S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Shippitsa Ltd. v. Slack

    Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-1036-D (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2019)   Cited 7 times

    But the activity described in the complaint constitutes, at most, ordinary trademark infringement; and there appears to be no precedent in the Fifth Circuit for prosecuting ordinary trademark infringement as wire fraud. See S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 912 F.Supp.2d 404, 422 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd on other grounds, 567 Fed. Appx. 945, 963 (5th Cir. 2014). Indeed, a number of courts have dismissed civil RICO claims that were based on patent or trademark infringement, even where the plaintiff attempted to plead that infringement as mail or wire fraud.

  2. Evans Law Corp. v. Burgos

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-13550 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2017)

    Essentially the same analysis applies to the predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud: "(1) the existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the participation by the defendant in the particular scheme with the intent to defraud; and (3) the use of the United States mail or of wire communications in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme." Walter v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 480 F. Supp. 2d 797, 802 (E.D. Pa. 2007); see also S. Snow Mfg. Co, Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 404, 420 (E.D. La. 2012).

  3. Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. Snowizard, Inc.

    833 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2016)

    SnoWizard obtained 12(b)(6) dismissal of some claims and won summary judgment on others, whittling the suit down from eighty-five claims to fifteen. S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. , 912 F.Supp.2d 404 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd , 567 Fed.Appx. 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014); S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. , 921 F.Supp.2d 527 (E.D. La. 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part , 567 Fed.Appx. 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The parties tried the remaining claims.

  4. Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc.

    833 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2016)

    SnoWizard obtained 12(b)(6) dismissal of some claims and won summary judgment on others, whittling the suit down from eighty-five claims to fifteen. S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. , 912 F.Supp.2d 404 (E.D. La. 2012), aff'd , 567 Fed.Appx. 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014); S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. , 921 F.Supp.2d 527 (E.D. La. 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part , 567 Fed.Appx. 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The parties tried the remaining claims.

  5. S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. Snowizard Holdings, Inc.

    567 F. App'x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding 12(b) dismissal of civil-RICO claims

    5) infringement of trademarks.S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 404, 412-13 (E.D. La. 2012) ("RICO Op. I"). On motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the District Court dismissed all these claims for failure to establish predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, or extortion.

  6. Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co.

    CASE NO. 18-10106 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2020)

    Id. Bosch GmbH also relies on Brown v. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, to support its argument that a regulatory statute's lack of a private right of action precludes a RICO claim. 753 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1254 (N.D. Ga. 2009); see also S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 404, 421 (E.D. La. 2012) (explaining that where "fraud in obtaining" rights from a federal agency does not establish RICO violation," it would be nonsensical to believe "asserting those [rights] in the marketplace" would comprise a RICO violation). In Brown, the court rejected a RICO claim brought when the defendant injured the plaintiff by making misrepresentations about loan-related charges in violation of Department of Veterans Affairs regulations.

  7. Rojas v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

    425 F. Supp. 3d 524 (D. Md. 2019)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that the plaintiffs' theory that they would not have been harmed had the defendant not made material misrepresentations to the Mexican government was “too attenuated” to serve as the basis of plaintiffs' RICO claim, because it “rest[ed] on the independent actions of third[-parties] by assuming that the Mexican government would have taken” action to dismantle the alleged scheme “had it known the truth”

    Plaintiffs attempt to frame the line-item charge as a misrepresentation of Defendants' authority to collect the Tax under a contract with the Mexican government and Plaintiffs' obligation to pay the Tax under Mexican law, thus making it a misrepresentation of law that cannot be the basis for a predicate act of fraud. SeeS. Snow Mfg., Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. , 912 F. Supp. 2d 404, 421 (E.D. La. 2012) (granting motion to dismiss RICO claim based on defendant's representations to the public regarding its intellectual property rights because "fraud cannot be predicated upon misrepresentations of law"); Seale v. Miller , 698 F. Supp. 883, 901 (N.D. Ga. 1988) (stating that "fraud cannot be predicated upon misrepresentations of law or misrepresentations as to matters of law").

  8. Cedra Pharmacy Houston, LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-3800 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2019)

    Because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants obtained, or attempted to obtain, their property, Plaintiffs have not alleged a plausible predicate act for purposes of their § 1962(c) RICO claim, and that claim is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See e.g., S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 404, 424 (E.D. La. 2012) (finding that Plaintiffs had not alleged viable predicate acts of extortion to support a civil RICO claim where the alleged extortion was based on "the transmission of cease and desist letters, the commencement of litigation on the basis of intellectual property rights, internet postings that '[SnoWizard] will protect [its] legal and trademark right,' and the refusal to provide services or retail products to Plum Street employees"), , aff'd, 567 F. App'x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1416 (2015); Mendez Internet Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Banco Santander de Puerto Rico, No. CIV. 08-2140 (JAF), 2009 WL 1392189, at *4 (D.P.R. May 15, 2009) (dismissing plaintiff's civil RICO claim predicated on extortion where the supporting allegations were that defendants interfered with plaintiff's "license to establish a dinar sales outlet in Puerto Rico" but there were no allegations that defendants "actually acquired Méndez' license to distribute dinars in Puerto Rico"), af

  9. Lincoln v. Danner

    CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-393 SECTION: "H" (E.D. La. Sep. 10, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff's case statement does not, however, sufficiently establish the Defendants involvement in an enterprise. S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 404, 420 (E.D. La. 2012) aff'd, 567 F. App'x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, which establish the existence of an enterprise. . . . If the enterprise alleged is an "association in fact" enterprise, the plaintiff must show evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, that functions as a continuing unit over time through a hierarchical or consensual decision-making structure. . . . Finally, the plaintiff must plead specific facts which establish that the association exists for purposes other than simply to commit the predicate acts.