Issue: In a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in a RICO action, is a plaintiff required to present evidence in its complaint of the non-existence of independent factors that could attenuate proximate cause?
| Area of Law: | Criminal Law, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Motion to dismiss; Independent factors, Proximate cause; Evidence |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 551 U.S. 89; 755 F.2d 810; 680 F.3d 1316 |
| Cited Statutes: | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Date: | 12/01/2013 |
A plaintiff has no obligation “to prove a series of negatives; he doesn’t have to offer evidence which positively excludes every other possible cause”. BCS Servs., Inc. v. Heartwood, 88, LLC, 637 F.3d 750, 757 (7th Cir. 2011). Judge Posner explained:
In technical legal terms the burden of proving an “intervening cause”—something which snaps the “causal chain” (that is, operates as a “superseding cause”, wiping out the defendant’s liability) that connects the wrongful act to the defendant’s (sic) injury—is on the defendant.
Id. (citations omitted). Thus, if a defendant contends independent factors exist that break the causal chain, the defendant has the burden to present them.
If a party fails to cite any authority to support its position, the party waives the argument. Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012) TA l "Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.2012)" s "Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch. (11th Cir.2012)" c 1 (“A passing reference to an issue in a brief is not enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite authorities in support of an issue waives it.”).
With respect to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Supreme Court has observed:
0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify’>