Angermeir v. Cohen, 14 F. Supp. 3d 134

Plaintiffs allege civil RICO claims, a RICO conspiracy, and NY Gen. Bus. Law § 349 against NLS, MBF, LFG, and numerous individuals and Sussman entities.
Defendants allegedly operate a racketeering enterprise using a small-business equipment leasing business as a cover for a coercive scheme across multiple states.
The scheme allegedly forged lease documents, used fraudulent lawsuits in New York City Civil Court, and extorted unwarranted payments from out-of-state plaintiffs.
Individuals Cohen and Krieger allegedly masterminded the Enterprise; other named individuals held managerial roles within Corporate Defendants and their affiliates.
Plaintiffs allege mail and wire fraud, federal extortion, state-law extortion, and deceptive practices, with resulting injuries including legal fees and adverse credit entries.
Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss: § 349 dismissed; § 1964(c) RICO claims survive; Greene’s claim treated under accrual rules; Rule 8 and Rule 9(b) standards analyzed and satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 8(a) sufficiency for multi-defendant pleading	Plaintiffs’ detailed allegations distinguish each defendant.	Complaint lumps defendants, failing notice pleading.	Rule 8(a) satisfied; fair notice given.
Rule 9(b) sufficiency for fraud predicates	Allegations meet particularity for mail/wire fraud within a master scheme.	Role of each defendant in fraud not adequately pleaded.	Rule 9(b) satisfied for mail/wire fraud due to overarching scheme and defendant-specific allegations.
Injury to business or property under §1964(c)	Injuries include legally incurred expenses proximately caused by RICO violations.	Many injuries are personal/emotional; credit entries alone not actionable.	Sufficient injury: legal fees proximately caused by the scheme; personal injuries insufficient.
RICO conspiracy sufficiency	Defendants knowingly agreed to participate in the scheme; multiple acts alleged.	Conspiracy claims insufficiently pled against individuals.	Conspiracy claim survives under Rule 8(a) with knowledge and participation allegations.
§349 claim viability	Defendants’ conduct constitutes deceptive acts affecting consumers and the public.	No consumer-oriented conduct; injuries private and not broadly consumer-driven.	§349 claim dismissed.
Time bar for Greene’s RICO claims	Separate accrual allows recovery for later injuries within four-year window.	All Greene claims barred by 4-year window.	Greene’s RICO claims not time-barred due to separate accrual rule.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requirement to plead plausible grounds for relief; not just labels)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (threadbare, conclusory allegations insufficient; plausibility standard)
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; de novo with inferences in plaintiff's favor)
Spool v. World Child Int’l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 9(b) particularity not required when acts merely in furtherance of a scheme)
In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 995 F.Supp.451 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (particularity relaxed for complex RICO schemes using mails/wires in furtherance of fraud)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1105 (2d Cir. 1988) (standing/damages for RICO injuries; legal fees can be injury proximately caused by violation)
City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc., 541 F.3d 425 (2d Cir. 2008) (§ 349 requires consumer-oriented, materially misleading conduct with public impact)
Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1995) (private contract disputes generally outside § 349 scope)
Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 94 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1999) (consumer-oriented deception required for § 349)
Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1954) (general controls on pleading fraud; quoted in Rule 9(b) discussions)