CopyCited 897 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11578, 2004 WL 1301078
...§ 1981 (Count I);13 (2) three federal RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. §
1962(b), (c), and (d), and three Florida RICO counts under Fla. Stat. Ch.
13
Plaintiff Donald McGuckian did not join the § 1981 race discrimination claim.
15
772.103(2), (3), and (4) (Counts II through VII); and conspiracy to defraud (Count
IX)....
...the district court’s order entered September 17, 2001. Jackson I,
181 F. Supp. 2d
at 1365. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. §
1962(b)-(d), and Florida’s RICO analog, the Civil Remedies for Criminal
Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §
772.103(2)-(4).17 We have explained that interpretation
17
The relevant portion of the federal RICO statute reads as follows:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of
rack...
...hrough a
pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.
(4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of
subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3).
Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (2) - (4).
Under Florida law, a “pattern of criminal activity”
means engaging in at least two incidents of criminal activity that
have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, o...
...The pertinent provisions of the federal and state RICO laws can be
violated when defendants “conspire to violate any of” the substantive provisions
34
of the RICO laws. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); see also Fla. Stat. § 772.103(4)....
...While this observation is
undoubtedly correct, the plaintiffs’ argument fails to acknowledge that what is
required to support a claim of RICO conspiracy is that plaintiffs allege an illegal
agreement to violate a substantive provision of the RICO statute. See 18 U.S.C. §
1962(d); Fla. Stat. § 772.103(4)....
CopyCited 98 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 534950
...Count III alleged Civil Theft against Mr. Ginsberg and MLG Properties, Inc., Count IV alleged Violation of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act [RICO] against Mr. Ginsberg and MLG Properties, Inc. and Count V alleged a Violation of Section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes against Mr....
...the necessary intent to steal those rents. Rosen. As a matter of law, under these facts, Lennar has failed to allege a cause of action for civil theft. In Count IV Lennar alleges a violation of The Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. Section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, [17] Florida's RICO statute, applies only where there has been some sort of ongoing criminal behavior....
...Its purpose is to punish, through civil penalties, actions which are ongoing and criminal in nature. Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act simply cannot apply where there has been no criminal activity. There can be no cause of action under section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes for the operation of a criminal enterprise dedicated to the ongoing theft of the rents if the rents have not been and could not have been stolen by those allegedly doing the stealing. Furthermore, Lennar has not properly alleged the necessary predicate acts or continuity of endeavor required to maintain an action under section 772.103, Florida Statutes....
...language of the statute, acts which lack factual allegations and merely state bare legal conclusions. See Becerra. Because Lennar has failed to allege criminal conduct of an ongoing nature Count IV must fail. In Count V Lennar alleges a violation of section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes....
...e, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom. (b) Appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto. [17] Section 772.103, Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part as follows: Prohibited Activities. It is unlawful for any person: (3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt. [18] Section 772.103 Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part as follows: Prohibited Activities....
CopyCited 67 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 40 Fed. R. Serv. 843, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6530, 1994 WL 91268
...The sales were found to have continuity with one another because they occurred less than a year apart. The district court therefore concluded that the sales of Telron I and II constituted a pattern of criminal activity as defined in Fla.Stat. §
772.102(4) and §
772.103....
...These criminal acts were found to comprise the necessary predicate acts to create civil liability under §
772.104, which provides for treble damages for any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that his injury was caused as a result of violations of §
772.103....
...Florida Statutes §
772.104 provides for an award of treble damages in a civil action when the following requirements are met: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s.
772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. In no event shall punitive damages be awarded under this section.... Under §
772.103(3), it is “unlawful for any person: ... Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.” Fla.Stat. §
772.103(3) (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 26 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The RICO "Person" And The Distinct RICO "Enterprise" A verdict was also correctly directed on the nurseries' RICO claims because the nurseries failed to prove the existence of an "enterprise" separate and distinct from the "person" sued for RICO violations. The nurseries sought to recover under section 772.103(3) of the Florida Statutes which makes it "unlawful for any person ......
...However, Gurdian's testimony reflects only his receipt of this letter; there is no testimony that he relied on it or communicated its content to anyone. This cannot be deemed "clear and convincing evidence" of "injury by reason of violation of the provisions of s.
772.103" as mandated by section
772.104....
...f the knowing false statement")(emphasis added). Thus, the charge requiring a finding of causation was contingent on proof of reliance and was in no way a waiver of the necessity for proof of that element. [5] Section
895.03(3) is the counterpart to section
772.103(3), which provides for civil remedies for criminal practices....
CopyCited 25 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19264
...on which Chapter 772 is patterned.'") (quotation omitted). Accordingly, I will examine cases interpreting the Florida and federal RICO to assess whether the proposed Counts are futile. Plaintiff-Growers allege that DuPont engaged in criminal activity actionable pursuant to Florida Statutes § 772.103(3), which provides that it is unlawful for any person "[e]mployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt." (Corrigenda Exh....
...§ 1503, (7) tampering with witnesses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, (8) tampering with or fabricating physical evidence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), and (9) racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B). ( Id. ). Plaintiff-Growers' proposed Count II alleges that DuPont violated § 772.103(4), which prohibits any person from conspiring to violate § 772.103(3)....
...The relevant Florida RICO provision makes it unlawful for any person "[e]mployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt." Fla. Stat. § 772.103(3)....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41107
...money, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Count I); conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) through transporting and receiving stolen or converted money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count II); violation of Florida's civil RICO statute, Fla. Stat. §§
772.103(3) and
772.104 (Count III); conspiracy to violate Fla. Stat. §
772.103(4) (Count IV); violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count V); and unjust enrichment (Count VI)....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14792, 1996 WL 566888
...In the final surviving count of their complaint, Anthony alleges a cause of action under Florida's RICO statute, Fla.Stat. §
772.104 (1995). That statute reads, in pertinent part: Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of [Section]
772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained.... Id. Anthony alleges that Miller violated two (2) of the four (4) provisions listed in the referenced statute, Section
772.103 (1995)....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20856, 1992 WL 443758
...Plaintiff, COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY ("Colonial"), filed this action against Defendants, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. ("Federal RICO"); Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act: Fla.Stat. § 772.103 et seq., ("Florida RICO"); Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices, Civil Remedy for Theft: Fla.Stat....
...h affect, interstate or foreign commerce. Colonial avers that, at all times relevant to the Second Amended Complaint, Value and Consumer constituted an enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) and § 1962 and Fla.Stat. §
772.102(3) and §
772.103....
...The Federal and Florida RICO statutes contain elements which are identical in some instances. Accordingly, this Court addresses similar Federal and Florida RICO elements collectively. A. Adequacy of Pleading Injury Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(1). Defendants Value, Consumer and Cohen move to dismiss claims asserting violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(1) for failure to adequately plead injury....
...Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned that Defendants Value, Consumer and Cohen's Motions to Dismiss Counts I and V of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to adequately plead injury, be DENIED. B. Adequacy of Pleading Injury Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(2)....
...Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned that Defendants Value, Consumer and Cohen's Motions to Dismiss Counts II and VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to adequately plead injury, be DENIED. C. Adequacy of Pleading Pattern Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(3)....
...The issue of pleading pattern is discussed separately herein. (See pp. 13-15 for pleading a pattern under the Federal RICO Statute and pp. 23-26 for pleading a pattern under Florida RICO). D. Adequacy of Pleading Conspiracy Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103(4)....
...This court concludes that Colonial sufficiently alleges circumstances indicating an agreement to support a charge of conspiracy under these RICO statutes. The Federal and Florida RICO counts against Defendants are therefore not subject to dismissal. Cohen alternatively argues that the claims under § 1962(d) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(4), fail as to Cohen specifically because "[a] corporation and its officers cannot conspire with each other for purposes of a RICO violation." ( Cohen's Motion to Dismiss, p....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25965
...§ 1983 (Counts IV, VII, IX, X, XII), conspiracy (Count V), negligent hiring and supervision (Counts VI, XI), and violations of both the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (“RICO”), and the equivalent Florida statute, Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV)....
...and ‘engag[ed] in a conspiracy.’”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Caravel-la’s section 1983 conspiracy count states a claim. H. Civil RICO (Counts XIII-XV) Caravella brings RICO claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. .§ 1962(b)-(d) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (2)-(4) against Defendants Pier-son, Mantesta, Guess, Fantigrassi, and Jenne....
...§ 1983 claim against Defendant Lamberti (Count XII) by no later than March 26, 2012; c. GRANTED in that Caravella’s claims brought pursuant to 18 ■ U.S.C. § 1962 (Counts XIII-XV) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; d. Caravella’s claims brought pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; e. Caravella may amend his complaint to re-plead his allegations brought pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.103 by no later than March 26, 2012; and f....
...r case an insufficient basis for dismissal at this stage. . Count V incorporates a number of paragraphs of the Amended Complaint by reference, including paragraphs 20-113. . Count XIV, a claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (b) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (2) is against Defendants Pierson, Mantesta, Guess, and Fantigrassi only. . Here, Plaintiff brings RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (b)-(d) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (2)-(4)....
...t of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Fla. Stat. § 772.103 similarly provides that: It is unlawful for any person: (2) Through a pattern of criminal activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3948, 2005 WL 475402
...Texaco, Inc.,
29 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir.1994). III. Legal Discussion In its Amended Complaint, Lockheed Martin has alleged three categories of RICO claims. First, in Counts I and IV, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and §
772.103(3), Florida Statutes, by conducting and participating in the conduct of four enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included acts of bribery chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year as well as acts indictable under 18 U.S.C....
...of justice), 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or informant), 2314, and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property). In Counts II and V, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) and § 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, by receiving income from a pattern of racketeering activity which they used and invested in the establishment and operation *1358 of Boeing. Finally, in Counts III and VI, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and § 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, by conspiring to violate §§ 1962(a) and 1962(c) and §§ 772.103(1) and 772.103(3), Florida Statutes....
...ing activity. Satchell's arguments for dismissal are identical to those raised by the Boeing Defendants except that Satchell concedes that Lockheed Martin has already succeeded in alleging an enterprise against him in its claims under § 1962(c) and § 772.103(3), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6178, 1999 WL 254374
...The amended complaint contains the following counts: (I) Racketeering Violation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); (II) Racketeering Conspiracy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); *1281 (III) Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3); (IV) Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4); (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Greco; (VI) Conspiracy and concerted action to aid and abet Greco's breach of fiduciary duty; (VII) Recission of Contracts between Columbia and the Defendants; (VIII) Accounting (IX) Breach of Contract (...
...These facts are sufficient to support an inference that Greco agreed to participate in the RICO conspiracy. For the reasons set forth above, the motions to dismiss Count II (Dkt.58-59) should be denied. Count III: Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3) Count IV: Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4) The Florida RICO statute is patterned after the Federal RICO statute, and the Florida courts often look to the Federal RICO decisions for guidance in interpreting and applying the act....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15065, 1990 WL 175343
...s were timely filed. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II and III as untimely filed is DENIED. IV. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Next, Defendants assert that each individual count of the Third Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. A. Section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes Defendants support their position that Counts IX and XII be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to state claims for relief under Florida's Civil Remedy for Criminal Procedures Act with case law that discusses Florida's RICO Act, an entirely different provision....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida
...2014) (internal quotations omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). If successful, a plaintiff may recover "threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). Florida has its own RICO statute. Fla. Stat. § 772.103 ....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 403721
...of the JV Agreement. Count I of the complaint alleged that Zosman and DeLeon failed to provide an accounting and diverted joint venture funds by entering into side agreements. Count V of the complaint alleged that Zosman, DeLeon, and Triana violated section 772.103, Florida Statutes, by engaging in a pattern of fraudulent racketeering activity, including forging two Release/Waiver of Liens ("RICO claims")....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14232, 1996 WL 550126
...Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249,
106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510,
91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). RICO Counts II and III of the Complaint allege federal RICO violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Counts VI and VII similarly allege violations of Florida's RICO statute. F.S.A. §
772.103(3)....
...Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Counts II and III of the Complaint. Defendant is also entitled to summary judgment on Counts VI and VII. Florida's RICO statute uses the same language to indicate the level of involvement necessary for RICO liability. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), F.S.A. § 772.103(3)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168036, 2014 WL 6725213
...[e]mployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity....’”Horace-Manasse v. Wells Fargo, 521 Fed.Appx. 782, 784 (11th Cir.2013)(citing Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (3))....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7171, 2004 WL 869369
...Section 1962(d) provides that it "shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section." 18 U.S.C. ง 1962(d). In Counts III and IV, Lockheed attempts to state claims under parallel provisions of the Florida RICO Act, sections 772.103(3) and (4) of the Florida Statutes....
...) Lockheed has thus sufficiently alleged a RICO enterprise. Whether Boeing may be held liable as a defendant "person" who "associated with" that ongoing and continuing enterprise also requires discussion. B. Boeing as a "Person": RICO & The Florida RICO Act 1. 18 U.S.C. ง 1962(c) & Section 772.103(3), Fla....
...to Dismiss at 8.) Only an extremely strained reading of the Complaint supports this argument, and Defendants cannot be said to have been on notice that Lockheed was claiming that McDonnell Douglas played a part in this enterprise. The section 1962(c) RICO claim against Boeing and the parallel state claim against Boeing under section 772.103(3) of the Florida Statutes are accordingly dismissed. 2. Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. ง 1962(d) & Section 772.103(4), Fla. Stat. The conclusion that Boeing is indistinct from the BTSTE also dictates that Lockheed's conspiracy claims in Counts II and IV against Boeing, under section 1962(d) and section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, be dismissed....
...As stated above, in the instant case there is a lack of distinctness between Boeing and the BTSTE. Furthermore, the Copperweld doctrine has not been offered by Defendants as a grounds for dismissal. [15] Lockheed's section 1962(d) RICO claim against Boeing, and its parallel state claim against Boeing under section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, are accordingly dismissed....
...Satchell, Erskine, and Branch's motions to dismiss the section 1962(c) RICO claims against them are accordingly denied. Because Satchell agreed with Boeing that the federal law conclusions should determine the fate of the Florida RICO claims, his motion to dismiss the parallel claim against him pursuant to section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, is also denied....
...CO claims, except in the context of the "pattern of racketeering activity" element. [20] Their extra argument that the Florida RICO Act's more stringent pattern requirement requires dismissal of the Florida claims against them is discussed below. 2. Section 772.103(3), Fla. Stat. Erskine and Branch argue that Lockheed has failed to state a claim against them for violation of section 772.103(2) of the Florida Statutes, pointing out that the Florida RICO Act "pattern requirement" is more stringent than the RICO requirement....
...56 at 1.) The Florida RICO Act provides that *1222 it is unlawful for any person "[e]mployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt." ง 772.103(2), Fla....
....J. Inc.,
492 U.S. at 239,
109 S.Ct. 2893). The Complaint alleges several incidents that took place at several different times spanning at least two years, satisfying the Florida Act pleading requirements. Erskine and Branch's motions to dismiss the section
772.103(3) claims against them are denied....
...Satchell's motion to dismiss the Florida RICO Act conspiracy claim against him is also denied. This conclusion would also apply to Erskine and Branch had they not raised an argument regarding conspiracy claims under the Florida RICO Act that Satchell did not. Their extra argument is discussed below. 2. Section 772.103(4), Fla. Stat. Erskine and Branch add the argument that the conspiracy claim brought under section 772.103(4) of the Florida Statutes is dependent on the section 772.103(3) Florida RICO Act claim so that the former should be dismissed because the latter should be. (Doc. 55 at 6; Doc. 56 at 1.) As was the case with the same argument regarding the federal conspiracy claims, because the section 772.103(3) claims against them are not dismissed, this argument is unavailing....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 147682
...Later he amended to include additional theories for such damages. His multiple causes of action included the theory that his discharge resulted because he had "blown the whistle" on his employer's improper use of toxic substances, as well as a theory under section 772.103, Florida Statutes (1989), alleging that agents of his employer had perjured themselves in proceedings for unemployment compensation which he had applied for after his discharge. The trial court dismissed the section 772.103 claims with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, but his other claims remain pending....
...ssessed. Coffey took this appeal from that order and argues that the attorney's fees issue was not ripe because no final judgment indeed, no trial has even occurred has been entered in the case below. Evans argues that the order dismissing the section 772.103 claims was a partial final judgment immediately appealable rule 9.110(k), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that Coffey's failure to appeal the dismissal within 30 days makes the award of attorney's fees proper now. We reverse for a number of reasons. First, the dismissal of the section 772.103 claims was not a partial final judgment and was not then appealable; thus the issue of attorney's fees had to await the entry of the final judgment disposing of all claims and defenses....
...aimant raised a claim which was without substantial fact or legal support. [e.s.] The words "in the trial and appellate courts" betray to us a legislative intention that the assessment of fees and costs await appellate review of the dismissal of the section 772.103 claims....
...In this event, he ought to be unrestrained by a previous and precipitant award of attorney's fees to change his mind before trial. We also note that Evans failed to mention attorney's fees in its motions attacking the legal sufficiency of Coffey's section 772.103 claims, and that its later motion for fees failed to cite any statutory basis for them....
...1991), the absence of a prior pleading containing a claim for attorney's fees is, without an estoppel from conduct or the failure to object, fatal to an award of fees. Ordinarily that absence here might preclude any award of fees, except that the order dismissing the section 772.103 claims is not final. We do not know whether the trial judge will allow the section 772.103 claims to be renewed or added again before trial....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24860, 2008 WL 852789
...Further, that Defendants ruined the Ward family's reputation. From these facts as stated, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants engaged in behavior that violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) [9] [Count I], § 1962(b) [Count II], § 1962(c) [Count III], § 1962(d) [Count IV], F.S. § 772.103(1) [10] [Count V], § 772.103(2) [Count VI], § 772.103(3) [Count VII], § 772.103(4) [Count VIII], F.S....
...to further hamper Ward's efforts at keeping his operation afloat. [9] 18 U.S.C. § 1962 is the Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act "RICO" statute, which forms the basis of Counts I-IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint. [10] Florida Statute § 772.103 is the Florida law that prohibits racketeering activity and is often referred to as "Little RICO." Plaintiffs allege violations under Little RICO in Counts V-VIII of their Complaint....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83803, 2009 WL 2731338
...sed by Fla. Stat. §
772.11 (DE # 1 at 95, ¶ 344). 2. Fla. Stat. §
772.104 (Count X) Plaintiffs have also asserted a cause of action in Count X by showing that they were injured as a result of Defendants' pattern of criminal activity. Fla. Stat. §§
772.103,
772.104. Section
772.104 entitles Plaintiffs to treble damages upon a showing that they were injured by virtue of Defendants' violation of section
772.103, which prohibits any person from using proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of criminal activity to establish an enterprise; from acquiring an interest in an enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity; from being employed by or associated with *1325 an enterprise for the purpose of participating in a pattern of criminal activity; or from conspiring to do any of the preceding acts. Fla. Stat. §
772.103. The undersigned notes at the outset that section
772.103 is dubbed the "Florida RICO Act" because it is patterned after the federal RICO Act; and, the Eleventh Circuit has therefore stated that "the analysis we apply to the plaintiffs' federal RICO claims is equally applicable to their state RICO claims." Jackson v....
...under the No-fault Law"). [14] The undersigned notes that the Florida RICO Act also imposes liability for using proceeds derived from a pattern of criminal activity to establish or acquire an interest in an enterprise or real property. Fla. Stat. §§ 772.103(1) and (2)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 305163, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1024
...(3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt. (4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3). § 772.103, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.
...erstand the facts upon which the Plaintiffs rely. Failure to Comply with Rules 8, 9 and 12 — the RICO claims Plaintiff Talisman seeks relief under sections 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) of the Federal Rico statutes and Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (3) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103 (4) of the Florida RICO statutes. Plaintiff EGE seeks relief under Fla. Stat. §§ 772.103 (3) and 772.103(4) of the Florida RICO statutes....
...assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” American Dental,
605 F.3d at 1290 (citations omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under Federal RICO section 1962(c) and Fla. Stat. §
772.103 (3) the plaintiff must allege (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc.,
473 U.S. 479, 496 ,
105 S.Ct. 3275 ,
87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). 39 In order to state a claim for relief under Federal RICO section 1962(d) and Fla. Stat. §
772.103 (4) the plaintiff must allege 1) that a defendant agreed to the overall objective of the conspiracy; or 2) a defendant agreed to commit two predicate acts....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 830, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2607, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1759, 1990 WL 21048
...a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., at p. 324,
106 S.Ct. at 2553,
91 L.Ed.2d at 274. In the amended complaint Plaintiff states as her causes of action: 1) sex discrimination; 2) violation of the equal pay act; 3) assault; and 4) violation of §
772.103, Fla....
...in the evening hours who shook her mobile home and slammed the screen door, all in defendant's attempt to block plaintiff's lawsuit. 3. Defendant's agents, acting within the course and scope of their employment, violated subsection (3) of Fla.Stat. 772.103 in that Les Minard III, Dave Falcone, and other unknown agents of defendant's conducted and participated directly in the defendant corporation through a pattern of criminal activity in that on several occasions they threatened her with bodily...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20205, 2010 WL 475130
...rectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. Fla. Stat. Section 772.103....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7750, 2001 WL 245122
...ey. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pierce also brings two counts based on state law, one alleging a violation of Fla. Stat. § 772.103(4) (the Florida RICO equivalent), and the other for professional negligence....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57005, 2007 WL 2274432
...regard to this Count is that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for substantive RICO violations. For the reasons discussed above, this argument fails and Count IV will not be dismissed. B) Florida RICO Count I alleges a violation of Fla. Stat. § 772.103, the Florida RICO statute....
CopyPublished | Florida 6th District Court of Appeal
...conveniens analysis. The trial court next found the oil companies waived their
895.01 to
895.06 of the Florida Statutes; (7) conspiracy to commit civil violations of
Florida RICO; (8) violation of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices
Act, section
772.103 of the Florida Statutes; (9) conspiracy to commit violations of
the FCRCPA; and (10) breach of contract.
5
objection to the Austrian prosecutor’s report by “fil[ing] and encourag[ing] th...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2613, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10975
...pattern of racketeering activity.” To be subject to an injunction, these payments would have to be “proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of Florida Statutes, section
895.03 (1985), or section
772.103, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986)....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 90 F. Supp. 1333, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4083, 2000 WL 343245
...The Amended Complaint contains the following counts: (I) Racketeering Violation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); (II) Racketeering Conspiracy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (III) Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3); (IV) Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4) (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Greco (VI) Conspiracy and Concerted Action to Aid and Abet Greco's Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (VII) Recision of Contracts between Defendant/Counterplaintiff and Counterdefendants; (VIII)Accounting (IX) Bre...
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 398, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 241, 1994 WL 69595
...n an alleged civil conspiracy between the Debtor and an entity known as Nar.co Realty, Inc. (Narco); in Count II on an alleged violation of Florida’s anti-trust statute, Fla.Stat. §
542.18; and, in Count III on an alleged violation of Fla.Stat. §§
772.103, and
772.104, the Florida civil Rico Statute, rendering the Debtor liable for treble damages....
...Based on the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the Debtor is not hable to the Claimants under Fla.Stat. §
542.18 for any antitrust violations. The Claimants’ allegations that the Debtor violated the Florida Civil RICO statutes are likewise without merit. Fla.Stat. §
772.103 states: Fla.Stat. §
772.103 Prohibited activities....
...directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity ... Fla.Stat. §
772.104 Civil cause of action. Provides that any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s.
772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained [[Image here]] Fla.Stat....
...ing upscale homes in the project. Its Agreement with Narco had none of the characteristics of a classic criminal pattern required under this Statute. In sum, this Court is satisfied that the claimants equally failed to establish a viable claim under §
772.103 and §
772.104....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 910, 1996 WL 50105
...ct (Count II), and Florida’s Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Count III). The allegations against Rivers and Moran as set forth in Count II, which allows for a civil recovery, are identical to those in Count III: *289 59. In violation of section 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have with criminal intent received proceeds, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity and through the collection of unlawful debts used or invested, whether directly or indirectly, said proceeds in the acquisition, establishment or operation of B.N. and the AUCTION. 60. In violation of section 772.103(2), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have through a pattern of criminal activity and through the collection of unlawful debts, acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, interest in or control of B.N. and the AUCTION. 61. In violation of section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, RIVERS has associated with B.N. and the AUCTION to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprises through a pattern of criminal activity and the collection of unlawful debts. 63. In violation of section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have conspired and endeavored to violate sections 772.103(1), (2), and (3), Florida Statutes (R. 208-09). Section 772.103(3) makes it unlawful for anyone Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2825, 2003 WL 738752
...(3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt. (4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3). Fla. Stat. § 772.103 ....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 42 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1733
...Cypress, No. 2013CA35936,
2015 WL
9438244, at *3 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Jul. 30, 2015).
This Case. On August 22, 2016, Lewis and Tein filed a complaint against
the Tribe, alleging one count of civil remedies for criminal practices pursuant to
section
772.103(3), Florida Statutes, and four counts of malicious prosecution
premised on the Bermudez wrongful death action (count two),2 the 2012 state court
action (count three), the federal court action (count four), and the second state
court action (count five)....
...tions, and the federal
court action a clear, explicit, and unmistakable waiver of its sovereign immunity,
opening the door to the Tribe being sued by Lewis and Tein in a subsequent,
related case for malicious prosecution and civil liability under section 772.103(3)?
The general rule is that a tribe’s immunity waiver in litigating one case does not
waive immunity in subsequent cases....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...2d DCA 1987)).
We conclude, however, that because neither the RICO count nor the
FDUTPA count were facially sufficient, the trial court properly dismissed
those claims. See O’Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc.,
599 So. 2d 999, 1000
(Fla. 3d DCA 1992); §
772.103(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4418, 2003 WL 1720387
...3d DCA 2000)(absent showing that corporation was formed for an im *202 proper purpose, corporate veil will not be pierced). Because it is undisputed that Sara Bed-zow never participated in marketing the condominiums, she could not have engaged in a pattern of racketeering by disseminating misleading advertisements. Section 772.103, Florida Statutes (2002), requires active participation in an enterprise, a much closer nexus than we find here....
