the context of that case, we held that the annual mailing of billing statements and policy renewals to an insurance claimant were part of a single unified transaction of obtaining insurance coverage. We concluded that those acts did not reveal a pattern of racketeering.
Defendant's argument follows this tack: that this case actually involves a single transaction, the misappropriation of a single group of ideas by one corporation from another corporation through one employee, and extending no further. The argument is superficially persuasive. Even though defendant's activity allegedly was carried out over a period of years, there is no dispute, taking plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true, that defendant had but one target, seeking a single related group of ideas through a single employee. Defendant's actions thus may be seen as related to a single goal, and as such, defendant argues, to a single prohibited episode.
In this case, however, even a limited interpretation of RICO would survive a motion to dismiss. Under the statute racketeering activity "means (A) any act or threat " involving various listed crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). One episode of racketeering activity thus may equal one act involving criminal activity. Perfection plainly alleges more than two prohibited acts separated by time and space. Response to Defendant's Reply Brief, Exhibit D. In deciding a motion to dismiss, these allegations must be taken as true. The acts cited were sufficiently isolated and distinct to be considered separate acts of racketeering activity.
We emphasize that our decision depends on interpreting the significance and quality of the acts themselves, which of course differ from case to case. Though the facts at trial may show that defendant's actions do not qualify as separate acts of racketeering activity, plaintiff's RICO claim is not presently subject to dismissal on these grounds. Defendant's other supporting arguments are no more persuasive.
Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. is DENIED. Defendant's objections to the court's extension of discovery and to plaintiff's third amended complaint are overruled.
Discovery shall close September 30, 1986. Plaintiff shall file its pretrial narrative on or before October 10, 1986. Defendant shall file their pretrial narrative on or before October 24, 1986. The court will conduct a pretrial conference on October 31, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 240 of the United States Courthouse, Erie, Pennsylvania Counsel will stand ready for trial on and after November 3, 1986 unless notified otherwise.
SO ORDERED this 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 1986.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.