Baker et al v. Patterson et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STAY - IT IS SO ORDERED that the Patterson Defendants' July 11, 2016 Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings (docket no. 27 ) is DENIED, but without prejudice to reassertion in the event th at circumstances arise that more directly implicate Patterson's Fifth Amendment rights; 2. The Patterson Defendants' June 15, 2016, Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) And 12(b)(6) (docket no. 17 ) and the Petersen Defendants J une 16, 2016, Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 20 ) are both granted, but only to the extent that the plaintiffs RICO claims are dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted, and without prejudice to the plaintiffs' attem pt to replead those claims; and3. The plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order within whichto file an amended complaint attempting to plead their RICO claims adequately. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett. Motions terminated: 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by Temp R Patterson, 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ambulatory Surgery Center of Burley, LLC, Joseph R Petersen. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SUZETTE BAKER; CAMILLE
ADAMS; DONJUA MOSELEY;
JENALI GRAHAM; CHERYL STONE;
GLORIA PRIETO; FALLON
MATTHEWS; PENNY DALTON;
CHARISSE STEVENSON; KODI
TWISS; TRINA SMITH; DORETTA
LOPEZ; ELIZABETH CARDINET;
CRISTINA MASCCORRO; CARLA
WEAVER; and HEIDI SKAGGS,
No. 4:16-CV-00181-MWB
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TEMP R. PATTERSON, M.D.; TEMP
R. PATTERSON, M.D., P.A.;
AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER
OF BURLEY, L.L.C.; JOSEPH R.
PETERSEN, M.D., and JOHN DOES 1
THROUGH 10,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AND TO STAY

Defendants.
___________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. 

THE MOTION TO STAY ................................................................. 3 

II. 

THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS ........................................................... 7 
A. 
The Sufficiency Of The Pleading Of The RICO Claims .................... 7 
B. 
Leave To Amend .................................................................. 13 

III. 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 14 

This action, involving civil claims pursuant to the federal Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and various state law claims, arises from a
doctor’s alleged importation and use of Chinese manufactured counterfeit Botox and
Chinese manufactured breast implants, which were not approved by the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA), on various patients of the doctor’s practice in Burley, Idaho. Two
of the named defendants are the doctor and his professional association (the Patterson
Defendants).

Two other named defendants are a surgery center, where the doctor

performed his breast implants, and another doctor, who operated that surgery center and
leased office space to the doctor (the Petersen Defendants). This case is now before me
on the following motions: (1) the Patterson Defendants’ June 15, 2016, Motion To
Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) And 12(b)(6) (docket no. 17); (2) the Petersen
Defendants’ June 16, 2016, Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 20); and (3) the Patterson
Defendants’ July 11, 2016, Motion To Stay Civil Proceedings (docket no. 27).1 Pursuant
to a Stipulation To Stay Proceedings (docket no. 29), filed by the parties on July 18,
2016, briefing on these motions was completed on August 11, 2016. I find it appropriate
to consider these motions on the parties’ written submissions, without oral arguments.

1

It appears that this motion was inadvertently “terminated” on the docket, as a
result of the Stipulation To Stay Proceedings (docket no. 29), filed July 18, 2016. That
Stipulation did not relate to the Patterson Defendants’ Motion To Stay Civil Proceedings,
however. Rather, that Stipulation related only to a stay for other reasons and,
specifically, set deadlines for certain briefing on the motions to dismiss then pending.
2

I.

THE MOTION TO STAY

Although it is the last motion filed, I will consider, first, the Patterson Defendants’
July 11, 2016, Motion To Stay Civil Proceedings (docket no. 27), because it challenges
the propriety of further proceedings in this action while individual defendant Temp R.
Patterson is under investigation by the FDA, which may result in criminal charges and
proceedings.

Patterson argues the FDA’s investigation has already involved the

confiscation of the breast implants removed from one of the plaintiffs and the execution
of a search warrant by six federal agents and additional law enforcement officers at his
home and office, resulting in the seizure of records, computers, and other items. He
argues that, under these circumstances, this civil action, involving alleged predicate
offenses of mail fraud and wire fraud, should be stayed. Patterson argues that, in the
absence of a stay, he faces the dilemma of asserting his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination or adequately defending this action. The plaintiffs counter that there
is, as yet, no criminal indictment against Patterson, so that a criminal prosecution is
speculative. They also argue that this case can be adequately prosecuted and defended
on the basis of information available from sources other than Patterson, so that it is
appropriate to proceed with their claims in light of Patterson’s wrongful conduct toward
them.
As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,
The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of
civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal
proceedings. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro,
889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.1989); Securities & Exchange
Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir.),
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993, 101 S.Ct. 529, 66 L.Ed.2d 289
(1980). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights
of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and
criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our
jurisprudence.” Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1374. “Nevertheless, a
3

court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ...
‘when the interests of justice seem [ ] to require such action.’”
Id. at 1375 (quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12
n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, 769 n. 27, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970)).
The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the
face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be made “in light
of the particular circumstances and competing interests
involved in the case.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This means
the decisionmaker should consider “the extent to which the
defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated.” Id. In
addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the
following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular
aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay;
(2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings
may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court
in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial
resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil
litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil
and criminal litigation. Id. at 903.
Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995).
In Keating, the court rejected the civil defendant’s assertion, like Patterson’s, here,
that a stay was required in light of the potential implication of his Fifth Amendment
rights. Id. at 326. The court explained:
A defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose
between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth
Amendment privilege. Not only is it permissible to conduct a
civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal
proceeding, even if that necessitates invocation of the Fifth
Amendment privilege, but it is even permissible for the trier
of fact to draw adverse inferences from the invocation of the
Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano,
425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1557, 47 L.Ed.2d 810
(1976).
4

In deciding whether to proceed with the hearing, the
extent to which the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights are
implicated is a significant factor for the [civil judge] to
consider, but it is only one consideration to be weighed
against others. Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902.
Keating, 45 F.3d at 326. In that case, the court found that the civil defendant had
adequate time to prepare for both proceedings, while the public’s interest in speedy
resolution of the civil proceedings would have been unnecessarily impaired by a stay,
and the civil defendant’s due process rights could be adequately protected without a stay.
Id.
Similarly, in Molinaro, in which the court also denied a stay, the court explained
that “[t]he case for staying civil proceedings is ‘a far weaker one’ when ‘[n]o indictment
has been returned[, and] no Fifth Amendment privilege is threatened.’” Federal Sav. &
Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Securities &
Exchange Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). In
Molinaro, the court also concluded that the defendant’s difficulties in defending the civil
suit in light of his Fifth Amendment privilege issues did not outweigh the other interests
in proceeding with the civil suit. Id.
I reach much the same conclusion, here. No indictment has yet been returned
against Patterson, making the case for a stay of these civil proceedings “far weaker.” Id.
The execution of the search warrant certainly suggests that a criminal prosecution is more
than “speculative,” but a criminal prosecution remains far from certain. Moreover, the
possible implication of Patterson’s Fifth Amendment rights is only a consideration, not
necessarily the determining factor, in whether to stay these proceedings. Keating, 45
F.3d at 326. Again, “it [is] permissible to conduct a civil proceeding at the same time
as a related criminal proceeding, even if that necessitates invocation of the Fifth
Amendment privilege, [and] it is even permissible for the trier of fact to draw adverse
5

inferences from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.” Id. at
325.
Furthermore, because the plaintiffs’ health and well-being are potentially at stake,
they have an interest in proceeding expeditiously with their claims. Id. at 326 (first
enumerated factor). While there is some burden on Patterson if the civil case goes
forward, because there is a potential for parallel criminal proceedings, id. (second
enumerated factor), adequate steps can be taken at a later date, if necessary, to protect
Patterson’s due process rights, where this case is still only at the motion to dismiss stage.
Id. at 326. The convenience of the court in the management of its cases and the efficient
use of judicial resources dictate that these civil proceedings should go forward, at least
until Patterson’s Fifth Amendment rights are more directly implicated.

Id. (third

enumerated factor). Because this is not a civil enforcement action, like the ones in
Keating and Molinaro, I do not find the interests of persons not parties to the civil
litigation or the interest of the public in the pending civil litigation to be of any particular
weight. Id. (fourth and fifth enumerated factors). On balance, the pertinent factors weigh
against a stay of the civil proceedings.
Indeed, it is highly unlikely that circumstances would ever warrant a stay of the
entire case, where other steps can be taken that would adequately protect Patterson’s Fifth
Amendment rights. Cf. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324 (“The Constitution does not ordinarily
require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.”); id. at
326 (“[I]t is even permissible for the trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from the
invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.”). For example, it may be
appropriate, upon a showing of sufficient potential prejudice, to enter a protective order
barring or delaying Patterson’s deposition, when and if it is noticed, or a protective order
otherwise designed to protect Patterson’s Fifth Amendment rights. The circumstances
that might warrant such a protective order are not currently before me, however.
6

Therefore, the Patterson Defendants’ July 11, 2016, Motion To Stay Civil
Proceedings (docket no. 27) is denied.
II.

THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Because I will not impose a stay, I turn to consideration of the defendants’ motions
to dismiss. Both the Patterson Defendants’ June 15, 2016, Motion To Dismiss Pursuant
To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) And 12(b)(6) (docket no. 17) and the Petersen Defendants’ June
16, 2016, Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 20) challenge the sufficiency of the pleading
of the plaintiffs’ RICO claims.2 In fact, the Petersen Defendants simply incorporate by
reference the Patterson Defendants’ challenges to the RICO claims. The defendants then
challenge this court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state-law claims, if the
RICO claims are dismissed. I find that the dispositive issue on the motions to dismiss is,
indeed, the pleading of the RICO claims that are the basis for federal jurisdiction.
A.

The Sufficiency Of The Pleading Of
The RICO Claims

The “Twom-bal” standard3 for motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—that is, what pleadings are sufficient to satisfy
2

In a single RICO count in their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs assert
substantive RICO claims pursuant to §§ 1962(a), (b), and (c), as well as a RICO
conspiracy claim pursuant to § 1962(d). In their response to the Patterson Defendants’
Motion To Dismiss, however, the plaintiffs abandon their §§ 1962(a) and (b) claims.
3

The “Twom-bal” standard is my nickname for the “plausibility” pleading
standard established in the United States Supreme Court’s twin decisions on pleading
requirements, and standards for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
claims in federal court. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
7

Rule 8—is now relatively well-settled. See, e.g., Landers v. Quality Comm’ns, Inc., 771
F.3d 638, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2014). What is significant, here, is how those standards relate
to a RICO claim. What is also significant is that allegations of fraud, as predicate acts
under RICO, are subject to the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b), not merely a
“Twom-bal” plausibility standard. See Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 553 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc).
As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,
We start with the elements a plaintiff must plead to
state a RICO violation. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 129 S.Ct.
1937. The RICO statute sets out four elements: a defendant
must participate in (1) the conduct of (2) an enterprise that
affects interstate commerce (3) through a pattern (4) of
racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(c). In addition, the conduct must be (5) the proximate
cause of harm to the victim. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.,
Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496–97, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346
(1985).
Eclectic Properties E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir.
2014). I agree with the defendants that the plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded facts
plausibly supporting these elements, but have relied, instead, on conclusory assertions.
The principal deficiency, here, is failure to plead adequately the existence of a
RICO enterprise. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,
To show the existence of an enterprise under the second
element, plaintiffs must plead that the enterprise has (A) a
common purpose, (B) a structure or organization, and
(C) longevity necessary to accomplish the purpose. Boyle v.
United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946, 129 S.Ct. 2237, 173
L.Ed.2d 1265 (2009).
Eclectic Properties E., 751 F.3d at 997. More specifically, still, an “association-in-fact
enterprise,” under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), the kind of “enterprise” at issue in this case,
8

“does not require any particular organizational structure, separate or otherwise.” Odom,
486 F.3d at 551.

Nevertheless, to allege an “association-in-fact enterprise,” the

complaint must describe “‘a group of persons associated together for a common purpose
of engaging in a course of conduct[ ]’ . . . [and] must provide both ‘evidence of an
ongoing organization, formal or informal,’ and ‘evidence that the various associates
function as a continuing unit.’” Id. at 552 (quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S.
576, 583 (1981)). “The ‘enterprise’ is not the ‘pattern of racketeering activity’; it is an
entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages.” Turkette, 452
U.S. at 583.
The plaintiffs allege that the “common purpose” was “to profit from the sale of
these non-FDA approved products [that is, counterfeit Botox and breast implants] to
Plaintiffs and others.” Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 113. They have not alleged any
facts plausibly suggesting that the Petersen Defendants had or knew of any such purpose,
however. Eclectic Properties E., 751 F.3d at 997 (the plaintiff must allege a common
purpose of the enterprise).

This is so, despite their allegations that the Petersen

Defendants “profited from payments received from [the Patterson Defendants] for the
use of facilities necessary for the purpose of the enterprise,” id. at ¶ 115; that “Surgery
Center staff not only assisted Defendant Patterson [to] implant the non-FDA approved
implants into [individual plaintiffs], but, Surgery Center [s]taff actually removed the nonFDA approved implants from their packaging and provided the implants to Defendant
Patterson,” id. at ¶¶ 61, 68, 80, and 94; and that “[a]t some point, Defendant Petersen
and/or his employees or staff became aware that Defendant Patterson was using nonFDA approved products on Defendant Petersen’s property,” but continued to accept
payments from Patterson, see id. at ¶¶ 49 and 51.
There is no reasonable inference from the pleadings that there was a “common
purpose” of the RICO defendants. From the allegation in ¶ 115 of the Second Amended
9

Complaint, the reasonable inference is that the Petersen Defendants’ purpose was to
receive rents for office and surgical space from a tenant and fees for use of surgical staff,
at least in the absence of any allegations providing a factual basis for the Petersen
Defendants’ supposed knowledge that the payments came from Patterson’s use of any
products that were non-FDA approved. The plaintiffs’ allegations of such “knowledge”
in ¶¶ 49 and 51 are merely conclusory. The allegations that Surgery Center staff removed
implants from their packaging, as alleged in ¶¶ 61, 68, 80 and 94, are not allegations
of—or allegations of a factual basis for any inference of—knowledge that the breast
implants were “non-FDA approved.”

Apparently recognizing that deficiency, the

plaintiffs argue in their briefing that the photos of the packaging for the breast implants
and Botox, which are attached to their Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, show
“Chinese writing.” The presence of “Chinese writing” on the packaging is not a fact
demonstrating why anyone would know that the breast implants and Botox were “nonFDA approved.” Thus, there is no factual basis for an inference that the Petersen
Defendants continued to accept payments from Patterson after supposedly gaining the
required knowledge, as alleged in ¶¶ 49 and 51, to plausibly suggest that the Petersen
Defendants had the “common purpose” of profiting from the sale of non-FDA approved
products.
Furthermore, there is no adequate pleading of “an ongoing organization, formal
or informal,” or “that the various associates function[ed] as a continuing unit.” Odom,
486 F.3d at 552 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At most, the facts
pleaded suggest that Patterson had an occasional buyer-seller relationship with
distributors of Chinese made implants and Botox and a landlord-tenant arrangement with
the Peterson Defendants. Patterson’s involvement with both distributors and his landlord
simply is not enough to establish “that the various associates function[ed] as a continuing
unit.” Id. Indeed, there are no allegations of facts plausibly suggesting that anyone
10

but Patterson was aware that any other participants were required to accomplish the
supposed “common purpose” of the supposed “enterprise,” and no allegation of any
“mechanisms” that enabled the members of the enterprise to act as a “unit” to fulfill the
supposed “common purpose.” Cf. id.4
I also find that allegations of fraud in the Second Amended Complaint, as predicate
acts under RICO, fail to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b). See id. at
553. Specifically,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that
fraud be pled with particularity. It provides: “In all averments
of fraud ..., the circumstances constituting fraud ... shall be
stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other
condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
Rule 9(b) “requires the identification of the circumstances
constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an
adequate answer from the allegations.” Schreiber Distrib. Co.
v. Serv–Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1400 (9th
Cir.1986) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bosse
v. Crowell Collier & Macmillan, 565 F.2d 602, 611 (9th
Cir.1977)). “[T]he pleader must state the time, place, and
specific content of the false representations as well as the
identities of the parties to the misrepresentation.” Id. at 1401;
see also Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d
531, 541 (9th Cir.1989). While the factual circumstances of
the fraud itself must be alleged with particularity, the state of
mind—or scienter—of the defendants may be alleged
generally. See In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541,
4

I also very much doubt that the plaintiffs have adequately pleaded “causation” in
support of their RICO claims in their Second Amended Complaint, as the defendants
contend. I find it unnecessary to address that alleged deficiency, however, because the
plaintiffs’ failure to plead a RICO enterprise adequately and to plead predicate acts of
fraud with the required particularity, as discussed below, are fatal to the plaintiffs’ RICO
claims.
11

1547 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (“We conclude that plaintiffs
may aver scienter generally, just as the rule states-that is,
simply by saying that scienter existed.”).
Odom, 486 F.3d at 553-54.
The plaintiffs’ arguments for how they have met these requirements in fact
demonstrate the deficiency of their pleadings. They argue that they have pleaded the
following:
The Who: The Patterson Defendants, the Petersen
Defendants and the Doe Defendants.
The What: A fraudulent scheme whereby the
Patterson Defendants used the internet to import non-FDA
approved breast implants and counterfeit Botox from the Doe
Defendants that - when used to treat patients in facilities
owned and operated by the Petersen Defendants - were
misrepresented to patients as being FDA approved breast
implants and Botox.
The When: Over a period of time extending back at
least to 2011.
The Where: In offices owned by Defendant Petersen,
but leased to the Patterson Defendants, located at 1338
Highland Ave., Ste. C, Burley Idaho and in Defendant
Ambulatory Surgery Center of Burley, LLC owned by
Defendant Petersen located at 1344 Hiland Ave., Ste. E,
Burley, Idaho.
The How: Either representing the non-FDA approved
breast implants and counterfeit Botox as being FDA approved
while knowing it was not or by failing to disclose to patients
that the breast implants and Botox they were being provided
was in fact non-FDA approved breast implants and/or
counterfeit Botox imported from China.

12

An explanation as to why the statements or
omissions complained of were false or misleading: See
supra, “The How”.
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum (docket no. 26), 13 (footnotes omitted). The plaintiffs have
pointed to nothing more than general and conclusory allegations, the exact opposite of
“particularity,” without identifying any particular communication, at any particular time,
to any particular plaintiff, let alone that any such communication was by wire or mail or
how and when the wires or the mails were used in furtherance of the alleged fraud. See
Odom, 486 F.3d at 554 (“[A] wire fraud violation consists of (1) the formation of a
scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) use of the United States wires or causing a use of the
United States wires in furtherance of the scheme; and (3) specific intent to deceive or
defraud.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
In short, the plaintiffs’ RICO claims must be dismissed for failure to plead them
adequately, pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6).
B.

Leave To Amend

The dismissal of the plaintiffs’ RICO claims, as currently pleaded, raises the
question of whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their Complaint to
try to overcome the deficiencies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “ha[s] repeatedly
held that ‘a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the
pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the
allegation of other facts.’” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en
banc) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)); accord OSU
Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012). “Because plaintiffs might
well be able to remedy the deficiencies in the [RICO] claims . . . [they] should be
afforded that opportunity.” OSU Student Alliance, 699 F.3d at 1079. Such a course is
all the more appropriate, I believe, when the deficiently pleaded claims are the ones on
13

which federal jurisdiction depends. Also, because I will allow the plaintiffs to attempt to
replead their RICO claims, and I do not have jurisdiction over their state law claims
unless they do so adequately, I will not address the defendants’ arguments that the state
law claims are inadequately pleaded.
III.

CONCLUSION

Upon the foregoing,
1.

The Patterson Defendants’ July 11, 2016, Motion To Stay Civil

Proceedings (docket no. 27) is denied, but without prejudice to reassertion in the event
that circumstances arise that more directly implicate Patterson’s Fifth Amendment rights;
2.

The Patterson Defendants’ June 15, 2016, Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) And 12(b)(6) (docket no. 17) and the Petersen Defendants’ June 16,
2016, Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 20) are both granted, but only to the extent that
the plaintiffs’ RICO claims are dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief can
be granted, and without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ attempt to replead those claims; and
3.

The plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order within which

to file an amended complaint attempting to plead their RICO claims adequately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of October, 2016.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
VISITING JUDGE

14