Saunders v. Neighborhood Restaurant Partners, LLC et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida orders pro se plaintiff Charmaine Saunders to show cause why her RICO and civil-rights claims should not be dismissed with prejudice. The court concludes that the claims against Neighborhood Restaurant Partners are barred by res judicata and that the remaining claims fail to plausibly plead an enterprise, conspiracy, or other essential elements, including the particularity required for fraud allegations. Saunders must submit a memorandum of no more than twenty pages by February 6, 2026, explaining how amendment would cure the identified deficiencies.

Holdings

1. Res judicata requires dismissal of Saunders's claims against NRP because the prior decisions were rendered by courts of competent jurisdiction, were final, involved the same parties or privies, and involved the same causes of action arising from the same nucleus of operative fact.
2. The RICO claims fail because Saunders did not plausibly plead the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise.
3. The civil-rights claims fail because Saunders did not plausibly allege that the private defendants reached an agreement with state actors or otherwise formed conspiracies satisfying the elements of §§ 1983 and 1985; the § 1986 claim also fails because it depends on a predicate § 1985 violation.
4. The complaint fails to state a plausible claim because its allegations are conclusory, vague, disconnected, and insufficiently particularized as to alleged fraud.

Questions Presented

1. Whether res judicata barred Saunders's claims against Neighborhood Restaurant Partners, LLC.
2. Whether the RICO claims plausibly alleged an association-in-fact enterprise and related predicate conduct.
3. Whether the civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 plausibly alleged conspiratorial conduct and the required underlying violations.
4. Whether allegations involving fraud and fraudulent conduct satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
5. Whether amendment would be futile and dismissal should therefore be with prejudice.

Disposition

other