Legal Memorandum: Civil RICO Claim – Remedies

Issue: Under federal law, what impact, if any, does a plaintiff’s cessation as a small business enterprise (SBE) have on a plaintiff’s civil RICO claim?

Predicate acts alleged in a complaint to show the continuinty, relatedness, and pattern elements required under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) may suffice where they are not pled to establish damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).  To meet the “pattern” requirement, plaintiff must allege predicate acts that have been continuous.  The continuous requirement can be shown by a series of related acts committed over a substantial period of time.  Design Pallets, Inc. v. Gray Robinson P.A., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2007) TA l "Design Pallets, Inc. v. Gray Robinson P.A., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2007)" s "Design Pallets, Inc. v. Gray Robinson P.A. (M.D. Fla. 2007)" c 1 ; see also Anderson v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (continuity is satisfied by a closed period of repeated conduct or past conduct posing a future threat, but not by isolated events), aff’d, 353 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 2003) TA l "Anderson v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (M.D. Fla. 2002) aff’d, 353 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 2003)" s "Anderson v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2002) (11th Cir. 2003)" c 1 .  “The target of [RICO] is thus not sporadic activity. . .  It is this factor of continuity plus relationship which combines to produce a pattern.”  Sedima SPRL v. Imrex Co. Inc., 473 U.S.479, 496 n.14 (1985) TA s "Sedima SPRL v. Imrex Co. Inc. (1985)" . 

However, not every predicate act alleged to show […]