Lanza & Smith, PLC

Lanza & Smith
A Professional Law Corporation

3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
Irvine, CA 92614
Map and Directions

gavel and book

Legal Leaders | Presents Martindale-Hubbell Top Rated Lawyers | 2014 Featuring AV Preeminent

Legal Leaders | Martindale-Hubbell Top Rated Lawyers | 2013 Nomination | Featuring AV Preeminent

Avvo Rating

The Recorder - CAL Legal Content

134RD YEAR No. 9

FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2011


A Racketeer Influenced and Cor­rupt Organizations Act claim remains one of the most power­ful weapons in a civil attorney's arsenal. But recent appellate court deci­sions seem at odds with one another. Are the courts expanding or limiting RICO? The short answer is both.

The Supreme Court's history of rulings on civil RICO seems almost schizophren­ic. At times, the court goes to great lengths to strike down lower court restrictions on RICO. Intermixed with these decisions are a number of cases that constrict RICO. The difference could be described as pro­cedural versus substantive restrictions.

Recent appellate court decisions have erected further barriers to plaintiffs' sur­vival at the pleading stage. But once past the pleading stage, civil RICO, with its treble damages, can be among the most powerful threats a civil plaintiff can wield. This article discusses these recent deci­sions affecting civil RICO, and suggests an approach to pleading civil RICO that gives plaintiffs the best chance of surviv­ing challenges to the pleadings.


Congress passed the Racketeer Influ­enced Corrupt Organizations Act in 1970 to provide federal prosecutors with more effective tools to combat organized crime. But not wanting to limit RICO to criminal actions, Congress built in certain civil remedies, including injunctions, attor­neys fees and perhaps the ultimate weap­on of civil RICO: treble damages.

While RICO was "intended to provide new weapons ... for an assault upon or­ganized crime and its economic roots," it was not so limited. Given many chances to contain civil RICO within its original boundaries, the Supreme Court expressly declined to do so, instead stating that the statute was intended to attack both "ille­gitimate" and "legitimate" organizations. It became clear, upon reviewing the con­gressional record, that Congress intended RICO to be construed liberally.

It wasn't until the 1980s that civil law­yers began using RICO consistently. Once it was discovered that just about any busi­ness or associated group of individuals could be considered a RICO enterprise, civil courts began seeing a flood of new RICO cases with plaintiffs trying to maxi­mize leverage through the threat of attor­neys fees and treble damages.

The flood wasn't limited to federal courts. State courts have original jurisdic­tion over any civil RICO claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964. In fact, the California Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet, required to be filed in all superior court actions, currently lists "RICO" as a regular case category. Therefore, plaintiffs did not need federal jurisdiction to turn a breach of contract or a tort case into a more in­timidating RICO action.

The expansion of civil RICO lasted more than a decade. Later, in the 1990s, federal courts finally began to limit RICO actions, but primarily did so procedur­ally by imposing additional pleading requirements. Substantively, civil RICO remained as broad as ever, while courts endeavored to install a filter at the plead­ings stage. Many courts began issuing standing orders requiring RICO plaintiffs to file RICO case statements in addition to their complaints. As of 2009, the majority of civil RICO claims in federal court were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.

The elements of civil RICO are as fol­lows: (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering ac­tivity, (5) resulting in injury. While these elements seem simple enough, each has developed its own body of case law, with subelements, exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. As such, civil RICO claims are now seen by the defense bar as automatic invitations to file a motion to dismiss.

Before moving on to a discussion of how to best plead civil RICO to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, let's review some recent cases that have changed the analysis.


Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was not a RICO case, but rather an antitrust case brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It established a new "plausibility standard" in plead­ing, whereby a complaint's "factual alle­gations must be sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." The court further described this new plausibility standard as requiring the plaintiff to allege "enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence." Thus, the notoriously loose concept of "notice pleading" tightened slightly. In the wake of Twombly, courts and litigants speculated whether the ruling applied to all federal cases, or only those filed under the Sherman Act.

That question was settled in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court declared that the Twombly rule applied to all federal civil cases. It was not limited to antitrust cas­es. The Iqbal court also distinguished the plausibility standard from the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) for fraud. In other words, a fraud complaint had to meet both standards.

The recent Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision in American Dental Association v. CIGNA Corp., 605 F. 3d 1283 (2010), was among the first to apply the Twombly and Iqbal standards to a RICO case. Because most civil RICO cases involve a predicate act of mail or wire fraud, the American Dental case provided a glimpse at how difficult pleading civil RICO will be post-Iqbal. While the ADA seemingly had strong facts, it couldn't survive the double gauntlet of Rule 9(b) plus plausibility.


Keep in mind that you do not need to name each RICO violator as a defendant. The RICO enterprise could consist of any­where from a few to hundreds of mem­bers, but you may only wish to sue one or two of them. If so, give adequate attention to describing the alleged misconduct of the nondefendant violators as well so that the RICO "enterprise" is fully pleaded.


A pattern of racketeering activity is es­tablished by specifying the "predicate acts" or violations of a qualifying under­lying statute. This frequently involves the federal mail fraud and/or wire fraud stat­ute. If you choose mail fraud or wire fraud as your predicate act, keep in mind that these allegations must meet the height­ened specificity required by Rule 9. In­clude the usual "who, what, when and where" of the fraud. Whenever possible, quote the exact language of the fraudu­lent misrepresentation, or attach it to the complaint. Simply paraphrasing or sum­marizing the misrepresentations invites a challenge.


One of the key factors to establishing a pattern of racketeering activity is alleging that the predicate acts were sufficiently "continuous" within the meaning of H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989). There are two types of continuity, open-ended and closed-end­ed. Open-ended continuity applies when the predicate acts have every indication of continuing into the future. Closed-ended continuity applies when the predicate acts appear to have stopped, but at one time continued for a sufficient amount of time. There is no bright-line rule for the length of time required for closed-end continuity (which is judged on a case-by­case basis), but periods of time as short as three months have sufficed. Six months is a more realistic guideline, but anything less than a year could be fatal based on lack of sufficient duration.

If possible, try to allege both, in the al­ternative. For instance, if your predicate act involves a series of three fraudulent e-mails sent over a period of one year, the last of which was sent six months ago, try to allege facts indicating that further e-mails may be forthcoming, if at all pos­sible.


The "pattern" aspect of a pattern of racketeering activity has been held to require that each of the individual predi­cate acts be, in some way, "related" to the others. This requirement comes from the definition of a pattern itself. Therefore, in the example above, describe how each e­mail is related to the common thread. List as many commonalities as possible. Were they all sent to and from the same IP ad­dresses, from the same computers? Did they further the same end? If possible, quote a specific phrase that was repeated in each of these e-mails.


If the enterprise you allege is a corporation, keep in mind that a RICO en­terprise cannot be one and the same as the RICO defendant. This distinction comes from the rule that a person can­not conspire with himself. If the corpo­rate defendant acted only through its officers and employees, then it cannot be deemed separate and apart from the enterprise. If possible, try to identify at least one member of the enterprise who was outside the corporation. Remember, you do not need to name this additional person or entity as a defendant.


All RICO complaints must allege that the offending activities affected the ex­change of interstate or foreign commerce. Typically, if your predicate act is based on mail fraud or wire fraud, the effect on inter­state commerce is essentially built into the predicate act. Nevertheless, be sure to state that the mail or wire transmissions, includ­ing e-mails, affected interstate commerce, even if the communications were between adjoining offices.

Finally, keep in mind that many dis­trict court judges require a RICO case statement to be filed with the complaint. Use the court's "Order Re RICO State­ment" not only to structure your RICO case statement, but to structure the com­plaint itself. On the other hand, most state court judges do not require RICO case statements. Nevertheless, if you file a RICO action in state court (and if the defendant does not remove it to federal court), you would do well to find a RICO case statement from a local federal judge and use it as a checklist to ensure that your complaint meets all of the RICO criteria. Most importantly, do not rely solely on a treatise or RICO Case State­ment. RICO law is constantly evolving in every circuit, and new published opin­ions are emerging almost every month. Look for the most recent updates before filing your complaint.

Brodie Smith is a partner with Lanza & Smith in Irvine. He and partner Anthony Lanza successfully defended a multimil­lion-dollar federal RICO action at trial in June 2009, obtaining a unanimous jury verdict for all defendants.

Lanza & Smith, a Professional Law Corporation, is based in Irvine, California, and represents clients across Southern California, including Irvine, Newport, Newport Coast, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Orange, Tustin, Anaheim, Corona Del Mar, Laguna, Aliso Viejo, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Westminster, Riverside, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and Mission Viejo; and Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County.