United States District Court, N.D. California
ROBERT JACKSON and KYSER WILSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
civil RICO action, defendant moves for summary judgment. To
the extent stated below, the motion is
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,
certification was denied. At this stage, the only remaining
claim is plaintiffs Robert Jackson and Kyser Wilson's
RICO claim against LCA.
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
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
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.
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
Q: Those were her exact words?
[. . .]
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