ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE JURISDICTION

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Defendants removed this action from state court on grounds that the fourteenth "cause of action" set out in the complaint asserts "Civil RICO" as a basis for alleged liability. Although it appears likely the mere invocation of RICO suffices as a basis for removal jurisdiction, continued litigation of the case in this forum will not be appropriate in the event the RICO claim is not viable. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988) ("[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity-will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.").

The complaint here plainly sounds primarily in state law contract, with some possible closely related state law claims. The assertion of liability under RICO is pleaded conclusorily and without any clear connection to any factual allegations that would be necessary to set out a RICO claim. Accordingly, within seven court days of entry of this order, plaintiff shall either file a dismissal with prejudice of its claims under RICO, or shall set out in a brief not exceeding seven pages any reasons it may have that it believes it can plead a viable claim under the statute.

Further briefing on the pending motions is hereby suspended. The hearings set for August 29, 2019 and September 12, 2019 are vacated, pending further order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.