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.

TARASI v. DRAVO CORP.

August 6, 1985

RAYMOND J. TARASI, an individual and SEAL-PAC CONTROLS, INC. a corporation, Plaintiffs
v.
DRAVO CORPORATION a corporation , Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

 AND NOW this 5 day of August, 1985, having considered defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO claims and the briefs of both parties, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the RICO claims.

 WEBER, D.J.

 August 5, 1985.

 1. Plaintiffs' failure to allege "person" and "enterprise" as distinct entities;

 2. Plaintiffs' failure to properly allege the existence of predicate acts upon which the "pattern of racketeering activities" is established;

 3. Plaintiffs' failure to set forth with specificity the allegations of a conspiracy;

 4. Plaintiffs' failure to allege racketeering injury.

 The second and fourth bases of defendant's arguments were considered and rejected recently by the United States Supreme Court in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., et al., 473 U.S. 479, 53 U.S.L.W. 5034, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346, 105 S. Ct. 3275 (1985), and in American National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago et al v. Haroco, Inc., et al., 473 U.S. 606, 53 U.S.L.W. 5067, 87 L. Ed. 2d 437, 105 S. Ct. 3291 (1985). The court decided that racketeering injury was not a requirement to state a RICO claim, and that injury caused by the predicate acts was sufficient. Since the latter injury is present in this case we need not give defendant's fourth argument any further consideration.

 As to the lack of allegations pertaining to the predicate acts, we note that the Sedima Court clarified what allegations are necessary. To state a claim under RICO, 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962(c) the plaintiff must allege (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity. Sedima, 53 U.S.L.W. at 5038-39. Thus ostensibly, plaintiffs must simply allege that Dravo conducted an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, and need not allege the elements of the predicate acts. We believe that plaintiffs' amended complaint meets the Sedima requirements, and defendant's second argument is therefore rejected.

 In reviewing the amended complaint, we believe that defendant's first argument is more troublesome. Plaintiffs' allegations in this regard are somewhat confusing since they state that

 
1. Dravo is an enterprise;
 
2. Dravo in combination with others such as Marcel Bilodeau ...

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.