7 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Racketeering"'.
J. Snyder denies the city's motion to dismiss an investor's fraud and negligence claims, stemming from a cannabis permit consulting company of city employees who defrauded him of $900,000 with a sham consulting agreement for an application to open a cannabis business which cost other applicants $2857. Federal charges were brought against the architects of the fraudulent scheme. The city then sent the investor a notice threatening to terminate its state cannabis license if it did not drop the instant lawsuit. The investor has sufficiently alleged that the city failed to supervise its employees which permitted them to defraud the investor and that the city should have been aware of the corruption of the cannabis process due to FBI raids on some of those employees. It is premature to dismiss the investor's fraud claims.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv384, NOS: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, negligence, racketeering
J. Barker grants in part the cheerleading organizations' motion to dismiss, ruling that the cheerleader cannot bring claims against them under the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act because there are no allegations the organizations performed any of the predicate acts that make up the claims and the Act does not allow for secondary liability, even if the organizations were aware of abuse by several coaches. Meanwhile, the cheerleader's alleged loss of a potential career as a professional cheerleader is not sufficient to establish a concrete injury that would grant standing to bring RICO claims, and those claims will also be dismissed.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv2139, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: negligence, racketeering
J. Barker grants the investment companies' motion to dismiss, ruling that while the cheerleading coaches' actions in the State of Ohio allow this court to exercise jurisdiction via the RICO statute, secondary liability cannot be used to establish a civil claim for damages, and there is no evidence the companies directly committed any of the acts alleged by the abused cheerleader. Meanwhile, the alleged loss of his career as a professional cheerleader is insufficient to establish a concrete injury, and so the suit will be dismissed in its entirety against the companies.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2139, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: negligence, Emotional Distress, racketeering
J. Doyle finds that the trial court properly dismissed the churches from actions brought by the individuals alleging sexual abuse by scoutmasters with regard to RICO, respondeat superior and public nuisance claims. However, the trial court incorrectly dismissed several of the individuals' claims, including claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, failure to provide adequate security, attorney fees and punitive damages. The trial court failed to correctly analyze negligence claims against one church. The individuals may be able to introduce evidence supporting tolling under the statute as to their fraud claims, therefore the trial court incorrectly dismissed them as time-barred. Reversed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: A21A0898, Categories: Fraud, negligence, racketeering
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Simon finds in favor of the customer for his Unlawful Trade Practices Act claim against the car shop as part of the customer's lawsuit alleging that the car shop and its owners did not repair his Mustang and instead made it unsafe to drive. The car shop made untrue statements about the status and quality of restoration services on the customer's Mustang and the material defects of the vehicle's delivery, so the customer is entitled to $53,500 in economic damages.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Simon, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1387, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, Contract, racketeering