Joseph Miller v. Dogwood Valley Citizens Associ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH MITCHELL MILLER; DOUGLAS A. DYE, JR.; KENNETH G. COLBY, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DOGWOOD VALLEY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; GARY E. LOWE; MATTHEW P. BROWN; DEAN MUSSER; KEITH WYNN; JUDITH FRANCES MCDAVID, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00020-nkm-bwc)
August 18, 2009
October 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. D'Erasmo, JOSEPH J. D'ERASMO & Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellees.
ASSOCIATES, LLC, John Loehr,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Joseph Mitchell Miller, Douglas A. Dye, Jr., and
Kenneth G. Colby, Jr., appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their complaint against Dogwood Valley
Citizens Association, Inc., Gary E. Lowe, Matthew P. Brown, Dean Musser, Keith Wynn, and Judith Frances McDavid. Finding no
error, we affirm. The Appellants filed a complaint against the Appellees seeking violation treble of damages the and costs and attorney's and fees for
Organizations Act ("RICO").
RICO makes it unlawful for, among
other acts, any person to maintain an interest in an enterprise that affects interstate commerce through a pattern of
racketeering, or for any person employed by or associated with an enterprise that affects interstate commerce to participate in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering. U.S.C. See 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), (c) (2006); see also 18 (2006) (pattern of racketeering activity
requires two acts of racketeering activity within ten years). Here, the Appellants in alleged of that the Appellees Act, 18 engaged in
(2006), mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), and conspiracy to injure others in reputation, trade, business, or profession, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-499 (2004). 2
activity," in part, as any act of extortion chargeable under state law and punishable by more than a year, and any act
indictable under the Hobbs Act or § 1341).
Under the Hobbs Act,
extortion is defined as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or
threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). Extortion can be based on the fear of economic harm in which the "circumstances that surrounding the alleged United extortionate States v.
Billups, 692 F.2d 320, 330 (4th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 365 (4th Cir. 1995). However, where the threat of economic harm is based on economic threats to obtain property, a defendant
violates the statute only if he has no claim of right to that property. * See, e.g., United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769, 773 In order to prove that a defendant did not
(1st Cir. 1989).
have a legitimate claim of right to the property, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant knew that he was not legally entitled to the property. See id. at 774.
The Appellants have not challenged the existence of the claim of right defense in this court.
After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the Appellees, concluding that the Appellees at all times were acting under a bona fide claim of right, believing that they were entitled to the property obtained. Appellants contend We the
that the district court erred in reaching this conclusion. have thoroughly court reviewed did not the err record in and conclude that the that
believed they had a bona fide claim of right to the property obtained. Appellees next argue that the district court's legal and factual findings are clearly erroneous because the district court omitted facts from its written opinion. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court's factual and legal conclusions are not clearly erroneous and were adequate to support its opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See J.A. 415-28. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?