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)

Download PDF
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

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?