Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SELLERS v. GMC

May 18, 1984

HERBERT SELLERS
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VANARTSDALEN

 VanARTSDALEN, J.

 By a memorandum opinion and order dated January 3, 1984, I dismissed Count IV of plaintiff's complaint but granted leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint. *fn1" Defendants Arthur Hogan and Bruce Wright have moved to dismiss the amended complaint as to them. The motion will be granted.

 The relevant factual history of this action and the underlying litigation, which spawned the filing of the present action, Sellers v. General Motors Corp., Civil Action 80-1847, is set forth in the memorandum opinion accompanying the January 3, 1984 order. Sellers v. General Motors Corp., 581 F. Supp. 1360 (E.D. Pa., 1984). Basically, the plaintiff in Civil Action 83-3962 seeks damages for the alleged illegal conduct of the defendants in securing a jury verdict in favor of defendant General Motors in Civil Action 80-1847.

 Count IV of the original complaint against all of the defendants sought treble damages under the civil penalties' provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964. I dismissed Count IV with leave to amend because, inter alia, it did not plead with sufficient particularity the alleged mail and wire fraud claims which allegedly constituted the "pattern of racketeering activity."

 Count II of the amended complaint is brought under RICO against all of the defendants. Specific allegations are made that the racketeering activity involved violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 and 1503, relating to mail fraud, wire fraud and obstruction of the administration of justice, respectively. Defendants Arthur Hogan and Bruce Wright have moved to dismiss on several grounds. Because of my decision on the plaintiff's failure to properly plead a "pattern of racketeering activity," I have not considered defendants' other points.

 When plaintiff's RICO Count was first dismissed, it was done, inter alia, because plaintiff had not plead the alleged "pattern of racketeering activity" with sufficient particularity. The amended complaint fails to rectify the deficiency.

 The first alleged violation through a pattern of racketeering activity in the amended complaint involves the obstruction of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Section 1503 provides:

 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The amended complaint asserts that all of the defendants violated section 1503 by:

 
(a) concealing or inducing the concealment of documents which were subpoenaed or whose production was otherwise required by law, and which would have revealed information about prior claims and complaints relating to the malfunctions of the bus seat in question, and the existence of records of testing performed on the seat in question, as well as the results of said tests;
 
(b) giving false testimony which precluded inquiry into vital issues through feigning a sham inability to remember and/or a sham ignorance of facts relating to the existence of records of testing performed on the seat in question, as well as the results of said tests;
 
(c) concealing or inducing the concealment of facts whose disclosure was required by law;
 
(d) corruptly influencing the jury through the knowing presentation of false and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.