Case: 18-12064 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 1 of 35 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12064 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-02828-MHC ROSALBA CISNEROS, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETLAND, INC., BKG PETS, INC., PETS BKG LLC, PAWSITIVE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants - Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (August 25, 2020) Case: 18-12064 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 2 of 35 Before BRANCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and UNGARO, * District Judge MARCUS, Circuit Judge: In December 2015, Rosalba Cisneros bought a puppy from a Petland franchise in Kennesaw, Georgia (“Petland Kennesaw”). Less than a week later, it was dead. The question before us is whether Cisneros has plausibly alleged that her puppy’s death was the result of a nationwide racketeering conspiracy. Cisneros brought this case pursuant to the civil provisions contained in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), a statute originally designed to combat the mafia. Since its passage, the Supreme Court has recognized that RICO is a broad statute that offers the government and private plaintiffs remedies against organized criminal malfeasance in many forms. But it cannot be invoked every time a group of people causes an injury. RICO’s punitive power -- treble damages, in the civil context -- is necessarily cabined by a series of elements established by its terms and refined in its case law. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a civil plaintiff must plausibly allege each of these elements. Two elements are particularly relevant here. First, the plaintiff must plead the existence of a RICO “enterprise.” Second, the plaintiff must plead that each * Honorable Ursula Ungaro, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 18-12064 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 3 of 35 defendant engaged in the conduct of the affairs of the RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity involving at least two predicate criminal acts. On these elements, Cisneros’s complaint does not pass muster. Her complaint fails to plead facts that plausibly support the inference that the defendants shared a common purpose to commit the massive fraud she alleges. Moreover, as we see it, Cisneros has failed to allege with particularity that each defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. For these reasons, neither Cisneros’s substantive RICO claim nor her RICO conspiracy claim can proceed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Cisneros’s RICO complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After resolving Cisneros’s federal claims in favor of the defendants, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cisneros’s state- law claim under Georgia’s RICO statute. It should not have done so. Cisneros adequately alleged in her complaint that the Class Action Fairness Act vested the district court with original jurisdiction over this claim. On the merits, however, we agree that Cisneros’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals