Cerigny et al v. Joseph Thomas Cappadora, CPA et al

Filing 52

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Cappadora's pro se 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a timely amended complaint with detailed factual allegations, not legal conclusions, against the defendant at issue, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 9/14/2018. (Reference: All Cases)(jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONNA CERIGNY, ET. AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-11111
c/w 18-0869
REF ALL CASES

JOSEPH THOMAS CAPPADORA, ET. AL.

SECTION “B”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before

the

Court

comes

pro

se

Defendant

Joseph

Thomas

Cappadora (“Defendant Cappadora”) seeking to be dismissed from
this action without prejudice. Rec. Doc. 12. A pro se plaintiff
Charles Edward Lincoln, III, (“Plaintiff Lincoln”) has filed a
response in opposition. Rec. Doc. 16. For the reasons provided
below,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Cappadora’s pro se Motion to
Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 12) is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a timely
amended complaint with detailed factual allegations, not legal
conclusions, against the defendant at issue.
To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must allege facts
sufficient to establish each essential element of their RICO claim.
See

Price

v.

Pinnacle

Brands,

Inc.,

138

F.3d

602,

606

(5th

Cir.1998). Accordingly, Plaintiffs must allege as to the Defendant

1

at issue in this matter specific facts concerning (1) the conduct
(2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering
activity. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105
S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985); Elliott v. Foufas, 867 F.2d
877, 880 (5th Cir.1989); see also Robinson v. Standard Mortg.
Corp., 191 F. Supp. 3d 630, 638 (E.D. La. 2016).
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged in support of RICO claims that
Defendant Jill Jones-Soderman (“Defendant JJS”) created certain
entities

“in

concert

with

Cappadora

and

Traub”

to

engage

in

“victim-harvesting.” Rec. Doc. 17 at 4. Plaintiffs further allege
that Defendant JJS “received income derived directly or indirectly
from a pattern of racketeering involving “victim harvesting” by
mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), false or fictitious name fraud (18
U.S.C. §1342), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), and bank fraud (18
U.S.C. §1344).” Rec. doc. 17 at 9. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries
stem from Defendant JJS “trying to make them co-racketeers with
her in the Victim-Harvesting industry” as what they refer to as
“professional-support-harvesting.”
While we have construed the pro se Opponent’s claims here as
liberally as possible, the conclusory allegations against this
moving Defendant do not provide sufficient facts upon which relief
can be granted. Defendant Cappadora’s motion submits that he has
never provided Plaintiff Lincoln with any financial or accounting
services, and that he has withdrawn from Defendant JJS’s foundation
2

since 2010. Rec. Doc. 12. The response to same unartfully alleges
in conclusory fashion no factual basis for the claims against the
moving

Defendant.

Opponent

concedes

that

movant

performed

no

financial services for him. Opponent concludes without factual
detail that movant’s “financial wizardry” helped to create an
entity that “made possible” everything that others did to him. We
cannot

discern

the

factual

gaps

for

above

assertions

for

a

sustainable claim for relief.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3