Jackson v. Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc.

          ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         In this civil RICO action, defendant moves for summary judgment. To the extent stated below, the motion is Granted.

         STATEMENT

         The County of Alameda contracted with defendant Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc. to provide an electronic-monitoring program, including GPS and alcohol monitoring, for criminal defendants on pre-trial release or home detention. LCA tracked down participants, provided the necessary equipment, and reported any non-compliance. Plaintiffs were among those referred to LCA's program. LCA required plaintiffs to sign a “Supervision Fee Agreement” that imposed an enrollment fee and a commitment to pay an additional amount per day. Plaintiffs allege that they both paid LCA amounts they could not afford because they feared LCA would “violate” them so that they would return to jail if they failed to pay LCA's fee (Compl. ¶¶ 1-4, 47-64, 80-82, 107-25).

         Class certification was denied. At this stage, the only remaining claim is plaintiffs Robert Jackson and Kyser Wilson's RICO claim against LCA.

         ANALYSIS

         Summary judgment is granted when the pleadings and the evidence in the record “show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a). A dispute is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find for the non-moving party, and material only if the fact may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir.2010).

         To prove a RICO claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) the conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 620 (9th Cir. 2004). To prove a pattern of racketeering activity, plaintiffs must show that LCA committed at least two predicate offenses within ten years of each other. Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1229 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs allege that LCA committed predicate offenses of extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Section 518 of the California Penal Code.

         Extortion is defined in the Hobbs Act and the California Penal Code as obtaining property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force or fear. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The only possible predicate crimes of extortion here would be LCA's statements to plaintiffs Wilson and Jackson that they would be remanded into custody if they failed to make their payments.

         In recounting the alleged threats he received, plaintiff Wilson stated the following:

A: She told me if I didn't make a payment, I was gonna go to jail.

Q: Those were her exact words?

A: Yes.

[. . .]

A: She just told me that, then she went on to say, “This is how it happens, ” so - but she told me - she put the fear in me that if I didn't pay I was gonna ...