Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (2420)	1/24/2002 2:05:23 AM
From: jhild	Respond to of 12465

Dobry's lawyer Richter has some experience filing amended complaints. Apparently not successful experience I would be quick to note.: Copyright 1997 LRP Publications Civil RICO Report September 3, 1997 Predicate Acts; Vol. 13, No. 8 Northern District of Illinois Says Claims Against Mayor And Village Officials Do Not Constitute Predicate Acts The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that antitrust violations alleged against village officials named in their individual capacities do not constitute predicate acts because they relate to actions taken by the officials in their official capacities. Plaintiffs D. Pelfresne and S. Eisenberg alleged that the defendant Village of Rosemont instituted "sham" eminent domain proceedings for ostensibly public purposes that were actually for commercial, nonpublic purposes. Plaintiffs further claimed that the Village unlawfully received tax exemptions on its own commercial property, while imposing excessive real estate taxes on plaintiffs' property. Allegedly, the Village denied restaurant permits to the plaintiffs in order to prevent them from competing with other restaurants owned by the Village and its officials. Finally, plaintiffs concluded that a condemnation proceeding pending in state court against their property was not an isolated unlawful incident, but part of a much larger pattern of abuse. Plaintiffs' original complaint included five counts under federal anti-trust laws and two counts under state law. The district court entered an order dismissing all counts of the original complaint. However, as United States District Judge Robert W. Gettleman pointed out, when a court enters judgment in a case, it is not instantaneously entered on the court's civil docket. In fact, there is an unspecified window of time during which parties may be on notice of a judgment order that has not yet become effective. Plaintiffs took advantage of this "window of opportunity" and filed their first amended complaint. A day after the court entered its order dismissing all counts of the original complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing. Judge Gettleman agreed to address the first amended complaint in ruling on the motion for rehearing. The first amended complaint alleged fourteen counts, including one count of Civil RICO for which the plaintiffs requested monetary relief. Judge Gettleman stated the elements common to all civil RICO claims consist of a person engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity which is connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct or control of an enterprise. Plaintiffs alleged that the office of the Mayor and the people associated with that office constitute a RICO "enterprise." As predicate acts, plaintiffs specifically alleged federal antitrust violations, mail fraud, unlawful tax exemptions and assessments, and extortion. The judge found that the antitrust violations alleged against the Village officials fail to constitute predicate acts because they relate to actions taken by the officials in their official capacities. The Local Government Anti-Trust Act of 1994, the judge wrote, precluded the plaintiffs from requesting monetary relief. The court further noted that the Civil RICO count fails insofar as it attempted to allege fraud. Circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. Plaintiffs failed to specify what acts they were referring to. Therefore, they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Finally, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint. The court held that a plaintiff should not be given leave to amend a complaint when doing so would be futile. The court found that the second amended complaint would make some cosmetic changes, but would not remove the deficiencies. Pelfresne v. Village of Rosemont, N.D. Ill., No. 96 C 4658, 7/8/97 Opinion by District Judge Robert W. Gettleman Counsel for Plaintiffs: Tobin Marais Richter, Chicago, Ill. Counsel for Defendants: Peter M. Rosenthal, Simone Marie Boutet, Rosenthal, Murphey, Coblentzs & Janega, Chicago, Ill.