David Wittwer; Linda Wittwer; The Wittwer Family Trust; Daniel Doyle; Sharla Doyle; Daniel L. Doyle and Sharla K. Doyle Trust; Michael Williams; Grace Williams and Lee Wilson v. J & J Development, LLC; Joshua Pilch, individually and in his official capacity; Jacob Marble, individually and in his official capacity; Jeff Connolly, individually and in his official capacity; Steven Bradshaw, individually and in his official capacity; Daniel McDonald, individually and in his official capacity; Milton Ollerton, individually and in his official capacity; Bonner County, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho; Panhandle Health District; Timothy French, individually and in his official capacity; Kathryn Kolberg, individually and in her official capacity; Jason Peppin, individually and in her official capacity; Christopher Irvin; Tyson Glahe; Glahe & Associates, Inc.; James A. Sewell and Associates, LLC; Northstar Construction & Development LLC; Twin W Properties, LLC; Leatherman Development LLC; Pilch Custom Homes Inc.; Tom Duebendorfer; Over Under Title LLC dba TitleOne; Roberta Nutt; Jessica Skiles; Cody Telford; Ruth Barbey; Logan Trail LLC; North Idaho Group, LLC dba Century 21 Riverstone; Christopher Neu; Nancy Dooley; Eric Skinner; Cdare Group LLC dba Keller Williams Realty Coeur d’Alene; Chandler Johnson; John Does 1 through 10; and Doe Companies 1 through 10

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims against all defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege a distinct RICO enterprise or predicate acts of mail or wire fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), and that the proposed amendment would be futile. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants constituted a distinct RICO enterprise because the complaint did not provide case-specific facts showing that the defendants functioned as a continuing unit, and instead primarily described defendants performing their ordinary business or governmental activities.
2. Plaintiffs failed to plead mail- and wire-fraud predicate acts with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) because they did not identify the time, place, content, participants, or transmission method of specific fraudulent communications and improperly lumped defendants together.
3. Because plaintiffs failed to state a substantive RICO claim under § 1962(c), their claim for conspiracy to violate § 1962(c) under § 1962(d) also failed.
4. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed second amended complaint did not cure the absence of a cohesive enterprise or the failure to plead predicate acts with Rule 9(b) particularity.
5. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original federal-question jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged a RICO enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
2. Whether plaintiffs pleaded mail- and wire-fraud predicate acts with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
3. Whether the failure to state a substantive RICO claim also defeated the RICO conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
4. Whether plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint would cure the pleading defects or would be futile.
5. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal RICO claim.

Disposition

dismissed