Cerigny et al v. Joseph Thomas Cappadora, CPA et al
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.
REF ALL CASES
JOSEPH THOMAS CAPPADORA, ET. AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
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
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.
Cir.1998). Accordingly, Plaintiffs must allege as to the Defendant
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
“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
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
since 2010. Rec. Doc. 12. The response to same unartfully alleges
in conclusory fashion no factual basis for the claims against the
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
sustainable claim for relief.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of September, 2018.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?