Edvisors Network, Inc. v. Husser et al
Filing
17
RULING denying 6 Partial Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 8/4/2014. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDVISORS NETWORK, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-062-JJB-RLB
CLINT HUSSER AND
JAN E. HUSSER
RULING ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on a Partial Motion (doc. 6) to Dismiss brought by
Defendants, Clint Husser and Jan E. Husser (the “Hussers”). Plaintiff, Edvisors Network, Inc.
(“Edvisors”), has filed an opposition (doc. 10). Oral argument is unnecessary. The Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. For the reasons stated herein, the Hussers’
Partial Motion (doc. 6) to Dismiss is DENIED.
I.
Background
Edvisors brings this suit against the Hussers to recover money that was allegedly paid as
a result of a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the Hussers. Edvisors operates an online lending
resource center that helps students find student loans. Edvisors uses approved affiliates to market
their services. The Hussers, doing business as “Pay4mycollege,” became affiliates of Edvisors on
April 1, 2013 (Doc. 1, ¶ 12). As an affiliate, the Hussers placed an “Edvisors banner” on their
website. The banner acted as a hyperlink for visitors to the Hussers’ website,
“www.pay4mycollege.com.” The Hussers were compensated based upon the number of visitors
who were routed to Edvisors’ website and then completed questionnaires. (Doc. 1, ¶ 11).
Edvisors alleges that the Hussers used the information of unknowing students to pose as students
1
in need of financial assistance and completed thousands of online questionnaires while
purposefully concealing their true identity. (Doc. 1, ¶ 13).
Edvisors further alleges that at some point during the course of this fraudulent scheme,
Clint Husser became involved in an illicit pay-for-sex relationship with a woman referred to as
“Jane Doe.” (Doc 1, at ¶ 18). Clint Husser allegedly paid Jane Joe $1 per questionnaire that she
submitted to Edvisors through the Hussers’ website and subsequently helped her become an
affiliate with Edvisors in order to perpetrate the same fraudulent scheme on her website. (Doc. 1,
¶¶ 19-20). As a result of this illegal conduct, Edvisors alleges to have compensated the Hussers
“over $90,000.00 in unearned, illegitimate commissions.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 23).
The Hussers bring the present motion to dismiss arguing that Edvisors has failed to
sufficiently allege a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”)
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and under Louisiana’s corresponding state law, La. Rev. Stat. §
15:1353. (Doc. 6).
II.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a complaint for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When
reviewing the complaint, a court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. C.C.
Port. Ltd. v. Davis-Penn Mortg. Co., 61 F.3d 288, 289 (5th Cir. 1995). Facts must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Bass v. Stryker Corp., 669 F.3d 501, 506 (5th
Cir. 2012). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). A court need not determine at this preliminary stage whether the plaintiff’s claims
will ultimately succeed on the merits. Id. at 556. Instead, a court must identify the factual
2
allegations entitled to the presumption of truth and determine whether they state a plausible
claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
III.
Discussion
a. Plaintiff has established the three general elements needed for any RICO
claim.
“The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–
1968…, imposes criminal and civil liability upon those who engage in certain ‘prohibited
activities.’” H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone, Co., 492 U.S. 229, 232 (1993). Those
prohibited activities are defined in § 1962 and generally include a pattern of racketeering activity
associated with an enterprise. Id. If an individual is harmed by a defendant’s violation of at least
one § 1962 subsection, that individual can bring civil suit for treble damages under §1964. 18
U.S.C. § 1964. To succeed in a civil RICO suit, the plaintiff must first establish that the
defendant violated at least one of the four subsections of § 1962. All four subsections have three
common elements: 1) a person, 2) a pattern of racketeering activity, and 3) an enterprise. Delta
Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co, 855 F.2d 241, 242 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S.
1079 (1989).
First, under RICO, a person is “any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or
beneficial interest in property.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). Additionally, “the RICO person must be
one that either poses or has posed a continuous threat of engaging in acts of racketeering.” Delta
Truck & Tractor, Inc. v J.I. Case Co., 855 F.2d 241, 242 (5th Cir. 1988). This continuity
requirement is usually met by showing a pattern of racketeering activities. Id. As the named
defendants in this action who allegedly conducted the pattern of racketeering activities, Clint
Husser and Jan E. Husser are the RICO persons.
3
Second, “‘a pattern of racketeering activity’ requires at least two acts of racketeering
activity” which includes wire fraud, mail fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen goods. 18
U.S.C. § 1961. To establish a pattern of racketeering activity, a plaintiff “must show that the
racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued
criminal activity.” H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone, Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1993)
(emphasis added). Edvisors alleges that the Hussers “posed as legitimate students in need of
financial assistance, and completed thousands of online questionnaires by accessing the Edvisors
network, through a webpage created solely to perpetrate their scheme.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 13). Edvisors
also alleges that the scheme was expanded by including Jane Doe and creating another affiliate
website to perpetrate the same scheme. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 19-20). The plaintiff claims in its petition that
these actions violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud), 1343 (wire fraud), and 2315 (interstate
transportation of stolen property). (Doc. 1, ¶ 30). In regard to mail fraud and interstate
transportation of stolen property, the plaintiff does not specify what, if anything, was mailed or
what, if anything, constituted stolen property. Yet, its alleged facts are sufficient to show wire
fraud, which is a scheme to defraud money by using interstate wire transmissions, such as the
internet. 18 U.S.C. § 1343; see e.g. United States v. Stephens 571 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2009). The
Court also finds that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to show a pattern of racketeering
activity because it alleges that the defendants committed wire fraud thousands of times within the
same overarching plan. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 13, 23). These alleged facts show that the defendants
committed more than two acts of racketeering, that the racketeering activity was related, and that
there was a threat of continued criminal activity.
The third common RICO element is an enterprise, which is defined as “any individual,
partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals
4
associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(A)(4). An associated-in-fact
enterprise must be a structured “a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of
engaging in a course of conduct.” Boyle v. U.S., 556 U.S. 938, 946 (2009). Edvisors argues that
three enterprises exist: the defendants’ business “Pay4mycollege,” the relationship between Jane
Doe and Mr. Husser, and the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Husser. The Court finds that because the
Edvisors pleaded that Pay4mycollege is a business entity, it is a legal enterprise. See U.S. v.
Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322, 1331 (5th Cir. 1983). The Court also finds that the plaintiff pleaded facts
sufficient to establish the relationship between Mr. Husser and Jane Doe as an association-in-fact
enterprise because Edvisors alleged that their association had the common purpose of completing
fraudulent questionnaires, which it continued for some time, and that Mr. Husser was the lead
decision maker. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 18-23). The defendants concede that this association could be an
enterprise as defined by §1961. (Doc. 6-1, at p. 5). As for considering the marriage community
of Mr. and Mrs. Husser as an enterprise, the Court does not find this argument persuasive
because the plaintiff cites no case law that recognizes marriage as an enterprise.
In sum, the Court finds that Edvisors pleaded facts sufficient to support all three of the
common RICO elements.
b. Plaintiff has established elements needed for each RICO subsection claim.
In addition to pleading facts that establish the three common RICO elements, the
plaintiff’s petition must also allege facts that establish that defendants’ actions meet all the
elements of at least one subsection of § 1962. “[I]n plain English, the [four] subsections state:
(a) a person who has received income from a pattern of racketeering
cannot invest that income in an enterprise.
(b) a person cannot acquire or maintain an interest in an enterprise through
a pattern of racketeering.
5
(c) a person who is employed by or associated with an enterprise cannot
conduct the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering.
(d) a person cannot conspire to violate subsections (a), (b), or (c).”
In re Burzynski, 989 F.2d 733, 741 (5th Cir. 1993). The alleged facts in its pleadings
support a claim under each § 1962 subsection.
i. § 1962(a)
“To establish a § 1962(a) violation, a plaintiff must prove 1) the existence of an
enterprise, 2) the defendant's derivation of income from a pattern of racketeering activity, and 3)
the use of any part of that income in acquiring an interest in or operating the enterprise.” St. Paul
Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 441 (5th Cir. 2000). “Moreover, there must be a
nexus between the claimed violation and the plaintiff's injury.” Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198,
205 (5th Cir. 1995). First, as previously discussed, Edvisors sufficiently pleaded facts to show
that Pay4mycollege and Mr. Husser’s relationship with Jane Doe are enterprises. Second,
Edvisors pleaded facts that support the Hussers engaged in racketeering activities and derived
income from those activities. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 13, 16-17, 19-20, 23). Finally, Edvisors pleaded facts
that make it plausible that the money paid to Jane Doe was earned through the wire fraud
scheme. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 13, 18-19). Edvisors also sufficiently alleges that because the defendants
invested money in Jane Doe to establish another enterprise, the plaintiffs paid $90,000.00 to the
defendants in unearned commission. (Doc. 1, ¶ 23). Therefore, the petition sufficiently alleges
facts to support a 1962(a) claim.
ii. § 1962(b)
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), a person cannot acquire or maintain any interest in or control
of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Edvisors alleges that the Hussers did
business as pay4mycollege and that they fraudulently completed online questionnaires using
6
www.pay4mycollege.com. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12-13). These alleged facts make it plausible that the
couple maintained control of Pay4mycollege, a legal enterprise, through their pattern of
racketeering activity. Also, Edvisors alleges facts which make it plausible that Mr. Husser
maintained control of the association-in-fact enterprise between himself and Jane Doe through
his pattern of racketeering activity. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 18-22). Furthermore, Edvisors alleges that
maintaining control of these enterprises through wire fraud caused it to pay $90,000.00 in
unearned commission. (Doc. 1, ¶ 23). These allegations sufficiently state a claim under 18
U.S.C. §1962(b).
iii. § 1962(c)
Under § 1962(c), a “person employed by or associated with any enterprise…[cannot]
conduct or participate…in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The word “conduct” in this section “requires an
element of direction,” so that in order to be found liable under this subsection, a person must
have at least some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S.
170, 178-79 (1993). Also a section 1962(c) claim requires the RICO person to be distinct from
the RICO enterprise. In re Burzynski, 989 F.2d at 743. For a business enterprise, “the corporate
owner or employee…is distinct from the corporation itself [because it] is a legally different
entity with different rights and responsibilities.” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533
U.S. 158, 163 (2001). For association-in-fact enterprises, the court recognizes that “a collective
entity is something more than the members of which it is comprised,” and therefore “a defendant
can be both a person and a part of an enterprise.” St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224
F.3d 425, 447 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Because Clint Husser and Jan E. Husser, the
RICO persons in this case, are natural persons, they are sufficiently distinct from their business
7
“Pay4mycollege.” Also, because Mr. Husser was a part of the enterprise between himself and
Jane Doe, he is distinct from the enterprise. Edvisors also pleaded facts to show that the Hussers
had a part in directing both enterprises’ affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. (Doc. 1,
¶¶ 13, 19-20). Thus, Edvisors sufficiently alleges facts to state a claim under § 1962(c).
iv. § 1962(d)
To establish that a person is conspiring to violate subsection (a), (b), or (c) under
subsection (d), the plaintiff must show that the parties were in agreement to violate a RICO
subsection and that they committed an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Beck v. Prupis,
529 U.S. 494, 505-06 (2000). In a civil RICO suit, a plaintiff cannot base its claim “on injury
caused by any act in furtherance of a conspiracy…[,but rather it must] allege injury from an act
that is …independently wrongful under RICO” Id. In this case, Edvisors alleged that the Hussers
were in agreement to commit wire fraud (Doc. 1, ¶13), that the Hussers fraudulently completed
questionnaires on the internet (Doc. 1, ¶ 13), that Mr. Husser entered into an agreement with Jane
Doe to commit wire fraud (Doc. 1, ¶ 18), that Mr. Husser used the internet to provide means for
Jane Doe to fraudulently complete online questionnaires (Doc. 1, ¶ 19-20), and that these acts
caused the plaintiff’s injury (Doc. 1, ¶ 23). These alleged facts make it plausible that an
agreement existed, that the Hussers committed wire fraud in furtherance of the agreement, and
that Edvisors suffered injury as a result; and therefore, the Court finds that the allegations
support liability under § 1962(d).
c. State Law Claims
The Louisiana racketeering laws are modeled after federal RICO statutes, and federal
decisions are considered persuasive in deciding Louisiana racketeering cases. State v. Touchet,
759 So.2d 194, 197 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2000). Since the Court has found that Edvisors’ Complaint
8
sufficiently alleges facts to state a claim under the federal RICO statute, it follows that Edvisors’
Complaint also alleges facts to state a claim under Louisiana racketing laws.
IV.
Conclusion
In this 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must view the facts in the light most
favorable to Edvisors and must accept well-pleaded facts as true. The Court finds the facts
pleaded by Edvisors establish the common required elements of the RICO statute: (1) a RICO
person, (2) a pattern of racketeering activity, and (3) an enterprise. The Court also finds that
Edvisors has pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim pursuant to each of the RICO statute
subsections and Louisiana’s corresponding racketing law.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Hussers’ Partial Motion (doc. 6) to
Dismiss is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on August 4, 2014.
JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
9
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?