Summary
Ceramic tile dealers brought a civil RICO action alleging that the manufacturer concealed its plan to close while inducing them to purchase and promote its products. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants and denial of leave to amend, holding that the dealers failed to show a genuine issue of fact concerning fraudulent intent, although their allegations sufficiently described a RICO pattern. The court reversed Rule 11 sanctions against the dealers' attorney because the complaint was not so baseless as to warrant sanctions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the dealers presented a genuine issue of material fact concerning the specific intent to defraud required for the alleged mail- and wire-fraud predicates of their RICO claim.
- Whether the alleged acts relating to Franciscan's contemplated closure constituted a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a second amended complaint on the ground of futility.
- Whether the dealers' attorney violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by signing and continuing to prosecute the First Amended Complaint.
Holdings
- Multiple alleged acts of mail and wire fraud involving multiple sales to multiple dealer victims over a five-month period could constitute a pattern of racketeering activity; RICO does not impose a categorical single-criminal-episode exception.
- Summary judgment for Franciscan was proper because the dealers failed to show a genuine issue of material fact concerning Franciscan's specific intent to defraud.
- Franciscan's failure to disclose its contingent investigation of closure could not support a fraudulent scheme absent an independent duty to disclose, such as a fiduciary or explicit statutory duty.
- The district court acted within its discretion in denying leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint because the proposed amendment was futile.
- The dealers' attorney did not violate Rule 11 merely because the complaint ultimately lacked substantial evidentiary support; the complaint was not so baseless or implausible that signing and prosecuting it warranted sanctions.
Key quotations
“No longer can it be argued that any disagreement about a material issue of fact precludes the use of summary judgment.” (818 F.2d at 1469)
“Therefore the dealers have alleged two or more acts of racketeering activity, and this, we hold, constitutes a "pattern."” (818 F.2d at 1470)
“While these facts do not suffice to create a genuine issue for trial, we cannot say that the complaint is so lacking in plausibility as to make Williams' decision to sign and certify it subject to sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.” (818 F.2d at 1474)
Factual background
The dealer plaintiffs purchased and sold ceramic tile manufactured by Franciscan. They alleged that Franciscan represented through mail and interstate telephone communications that it would remain in business and supply tile through at least March 1984, while concealing that it was considering closure. Franciscan's management investigated closure as a contingency while continuing production, investing in the business, developing products, and pursuing marketing opportunities; its board ultimately voted in September 1983 to close the company by the end of October. The dealers claimed inventory, promotional, lost-profit, and treble RICO damages.
Procedural history
The dealers sued Franciscan and related parent companies under RICO, alleging that Franciscan concealed its plan to close while assuring dealers that it would remain in business and supply tile. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, denied leave to amend with prejudice as to RICO claims, and imposed $350 in Rule 11 sanctions against the dealers' attorney. The dealers appealed, the defendants cross-appealed as to the sanctions, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals and cross-appeal.