Filed: Feb. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2020
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . No later than March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Bright Kids NYC Inc. and Defendant Alina Adams shall submit supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed five pages each, addressing the following question: Whether Plaintiff's allegations satisfy the continuity element of a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). See, e.g., Patrizzi v. Bourne in Time, Inc., No. 11-CV-2386 (PAE), 2012 WL 4833344, at
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . No later than March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Bright Kids NYC Inc. and Defendant Alina Adams shall submit supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed five pages each, addressing the following question: Whether Plaintiff's allegations satisfy the continuity element of a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). See, e.g., Patrizzi v. Bourne in Time, Inc., No. 11-CV-2386 (PAE), 2012 WL 4833344, at *..
More
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.
No later than March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Bright Kids NYC Inc. and Defendant Alina Adams shall submit supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed five pages each, addressing the following question: Whether Plaintiff's allegations satisfy the continuity element of a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). See, e.g., Patrizzi v. Bourne in Time, Inc., No. 11-CV-2386 (PAE), 2012 WL 4833344, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012) ("[Plaintiff] fails to satisfy the required continuity element of a RICO claim, because the scheme he alleges is too narrow, and the victims too few, to constitute a continuous pattern."); Evercrete Corp. v. H-Cap Ltd., 429 F.Supp.2d 612, 624-25 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Courts have uniformly and consistently held that schemes involving a single, narrow purpose and one or few participants directed towards a single victim do not satisfy the RICO requirement of a closed or open pattern of continuity." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also, e.g., DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 17-CV-1718 (PAB)(KLM), 2019 WL 4695743, at *12 (D. Colo. 2019) (holding that the plaintiff's allegation that it was the sole target of the defendant's scheme involving the misappropriation of trade secrets failed to establish continuity). But see also, e.g., Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc. v. Irex Contracting Group, No. 16-2499, 2017 WL 1105648, at *12 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 24, 2017) ("There is also a threat that the DTSA violations will continue because, allegedly, the defendants continue to use Brand's trade secrets in their business affairs at Irex. These allegations alone are sufficient to constitute a `pattern of racketeering activity' under RICO."); General Motors Corp. v. Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua, 948 F.Supp. 670, 676-78 (E.D. Mich. 1996) (finding continuity where the plaintiff alleged a RICO scheme involving the misappropriation of trade secrets); Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Min. & Smelting Co., Ltd., 750 F.Supp. 838, 840 (N.D. Ohio 1990) (same).
SO ORDERED.
