The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brewster, Senior District Judge.
ORDER: (1) VACATING PREVIOUS ORDERS OF JUNE 5, 1997, PUBLISHED
AT 967 F. Supp. 405 and MARCH 11, 1997, PUBLISHED AT 956 F. Supp. 1552
NUNC PRO TUNC; (2) DISMISSING RICO CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND; and (3) DISMISSING ALL STATE LAW CLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO
Plaintiffs herein, alleged residents of New York and New
Jersey, claim to be
purchasers, or the guardian ad litem of purchasers, of trading
cards. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased trading cards in
the hope of winning "chase"*fn1 cards, redeemable in bonus
cash prizes. Defendant is an alleged resident of California. On
April 18, 2000, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as
to why the claim brought under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968,
should not be dismissed for lack of standing under § 1964(c) of
RICO. The hearing for this Court's Order to Show Cause ("OSC")
was held on June 7, 2000 with counsel for all parties present.
The Court re-reviewed all pleadings, motions, and briefs
heretofore filed as well as all briefs filed in response to the
OSC. All parties appeared by counsel. The Court, having heard
oral argument by counsel and being fully advised in the
premises, now therefore issues the following ORDER:
(1) The prior order denying Defendant's Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is hereby vacated nunc
(2) The RICO claim is dismissed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) without leave to amend on the
ground that Plaintiffs' lack standing as required by
§ 1964(c) of RICO; and
(3) All state law claims are dismissed with leave to
amend. If no proper amendment is filed within 30 days
of the date of the filing of this Order, the state
law claims shall be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
A. Standing Requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
Pursuant to this Court's April 18, 2000 Order to Show Cause,
the issue before this Court is whether Plaintiffs have met the
requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) in order to have standing to
bring a lawsuit against Defendant for its alleged gambling
activity. Standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) requires an ability
to state a claim for harm to a person's "business or property"
resulting from conduct violative of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
Section 1964(c) provides in pertinent part: "Any person
injured in his business or property by reason of a violation
of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any
appropriate United States district court and shall recover
threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit,
including a reasonable attorney's fee. . . ."
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (emphasis added). Federal courts have established that
RICO was "intended to combat organized crime, not to provide a
federal cause of action and treble damages to every tort
plaintiff." Oscar v. University Students Co-operative Assn.,
965 F.2d at 783, 786 (9th Cir. 1992). Although this additional
requirement of a showing of "business or property" injury is not
imposed upon governmental entities, it is required in order for
a private party to have standing to recover under RICO.
2. "Injury" to Business or Property under
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
In their reply papers, Plaintiffs set forth several arguments
which skirt the immediate issue before this Court of whether
there has been a showing of injury to their "business or
property" sufficient to ...