O. Gene Bicknell v. Richard M. Silanskas, Jr., Larry K. Wilhite, and Stephen D. Hedrick

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma considers motions to dismiss filed by Larry K. Wilhite and Stephen D. Hedrick in a dispute concerning the American Heartland theme-park project. The court concludes that the plaintiff failed to plead the continuity required for a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO, dismisses the RICO claims, and otherwise denies the motions.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not adequately allege closed-ended continuity sufficient to establish a RICO pattern of racketeering activity. Although the alleged conduct lasted long enough to satisfy the duration consideration, the alleged scheme targeted one victim, pursued one discrete goal, involved little variety in predicate acts, produced one principal type of injury, and lacked sufficient extensiveness or potential to extend to other victims.
2. The RICO-conspiracy claim against Wilhite failed because the underlying RICO claim was dismissed.
3. The complaint adequately pleaded fraud and deceit against Wilhite because it alleged that he participated in sending materially false religious communications and that he received an advantage from the alleged constructive fraud.
4. The complaint adequately pleaded intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oklahoma law.
5. The complaint adequately pleaded civil conspiracy against Wilhite.
6. The complaint adequately pleaded unjust enrichment against Wilhite and Hedrick, including a sufficient connection between Bicknell's expenditures and Hedrick's alleged enrichment and sufficient allegations of wrongdoing and lack of an adequate legal remedy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bicknell adequately pleaded a RICO pattern of racketeering activity based principally on alleged wire fraud directed at him.
2. Whether the RICO-conspiracy claim survived when the underlying RICO claim failed.
3. Whether Bicknell adequately pleaded fraud, deceit, and constructive fraud against Wilhite.
4. Whether Bicknell adequately pleaded intentional infliction of emotional distress against Wilhite.
5. Whether Bicknell adequately pleaded civil conspiracy against Wilhite.
6. Whether Bicknell adequately pleaded unjust enrichment against Wilhite and Hedrick.

Disposition

other