James Brommer v. Bell Tower Investment, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota addresses pending motions in a pro se landlord-tenant dispute, including a motion to strike a Rule 7.1 disclosure, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike a sanctions motion. The court declines to strike the disclosure or dismiss the pleadings for formatting defects, finds federal-question jurisdiction adequately alleged through the RICO claims, and concludes that diversity jurisdiction is not established for the state-law claims. The court proceeds to assess whether the RICO and related claims satisfy Rule 12(b)(6).

Holdings

1. A Rule 7.1 disclosure is not a pleading within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a), so Rule 12(f) does not apply to it. In any event, the circumstances did not warrant striking the disclosure.
2. The amended complaint did not moot the pending motion to dismiss because Brommer intended it to supplement, rather than replace, the original complaint and the parties had fully briefed the motion.
3. Failure to use numbered paragraphs under Rule 10(b) did not require dismissal because Bell Tower was able to discern the claims and did not claim prejudice.
4. The amended and original complaints sufficiently alleged a RICO claim to invoke federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even though the RICO claims ultimately failed under Rule 12(b)(6).
5. Brommer failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for his state-law claims, so diversity jurisdiction was unavailable.
6. Brommer lacked standing to bring a civil claim under § 1962(a) because he did not allege an injury resulting from the use or investment of racketeering income that was distinct from injuries caused by the alleged predicate acts.
7. Brommer failed to state a claim under § 1962(b) because he did not allege an injury resulting from Bell Tower's acquisition or maintenance of an interest in or control of an enterprise, separate from injuries caused by the alleged predicate acts.
8. Even if Brommer had alleged a qualifying injury under § 1962(a) or (b), his conclusory allegations did not establish a pattern of racketeering activity because they did not show related predicate acts amounting to or threatening continued criminal activity.
9. After dismissing the RICO claims early in the action, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
10. Brommer was not entitled to terminating sanctions, judgment, or restitution based on alleged criminal violations; the sanctions motion was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bell Tower's Rule 12(f) motion to strike Brommer's Rule 7.1 disclosure was authorized when a Rule 7.1 disclosure is not a pleading.
2. Whether Brommer's amended complaint mooted the pending motion to dismiss and whether the original and amended complaints should be read together.
3. Whether the complaints should be dismissed for failing to use numbered paragraphs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b).
4. Whether the court had federal-question jurisdiction over Brommer's RICO claims.
5. Whether diversity jurisdiction existed over Brommer's state-law claims based on the amount in controversy.
6. Whether Brommer plausibly alleged civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) or § 1962(b), including the required injury and pattern of racketeering activity.
7. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the RICO claims.
8. Whether Brommer was entitled to terminating sanctions, judgment, or restitution based on alleged criminal violations.

Disposition

dismissed