619 F.Supp.3d 309
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Leon Black, Apollo founder, had an extramarital relationship with Guzel Ganieva (2008–2014); Black paid or agreed to pay her millions (alleged total payments ~$9.2M).
- In June 2021 Ganieva sued Black in New York State Supreme Court alleging sexual assault, defamation, IIED, and gender-motivated violence; her pleadings later added allegations involving Jeffrey Epstein and an anonymous Jane Doe.
- Black filed a federal suit (FAC Jan. 24, 2022) asserting substantive and conspiracy RICO claims against Ganieva, Josh Harris, and Steven Rubenstein, plus state-law defamation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims. Black alleged an association-in-fact enterprise that used litigation and a PR campaign to extort and destroy him.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the court stayed discovery pending resolution and considered Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) pleading standards.
- The Court dismissed with prejudice Black’s federal RICO substantive and conspiracy claims for multiple pleading failures, denied leave to amend, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (those were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a RICO enterprise (association‑in‑fact) | FAC alleges common purpose to "take down" Black and coordinated acts among Ganieva, Harris, Rubenstein. | No pleaded common illegal purpose or adequate interpersonal relationships; allegations are speculative. | Dismissed: FAC fails to plead common purpose and relationships required for an association‑in‑fact enterprise. |
| Predicate acts — Hobbs Act extortion | Public statements, tweet, state‑court suit, and PR campaign were part of an extortion scheme to extract money. | No contemporaneous threats or demands after 2015; publicizing allegations and filing suit are not Hobbs Act extortion. | Dismissed: Hobbs Act predicate not plausibly alleged (no wrongful use of force/threat or demand tied to obtaining property). |
| Predicate acts — mail/wire fraud based on litigation and publicity | Litigation filings and media dissemination were elements of a fraud scheme to obtain money/benefit. | Litigation activity alone—even if meritless—is not a RICO predicate; publicity/defamation is not mail/wire fraud absent scheme to obtain money/property. | Dismissed: Mail/wire fraud predicates inadequately pleaded; litigation activity cannot, by itself here, serve as RICO predicate under Kim and related authority. |
| Pattern/continuity of racketeering activity | The enterprise’s goals (coerce more payments; ongoing reputational attacks) show open‑ended continuity. | Alleged scheme targeted a single victim and is terminable; no ongoing pattern of qualifying predicate acts. | Dismissed: Continuity not shown; scheme was limited/terminable and predicate acts were not adequately pled. |
| Injury and RICO standing | Legal fees defending the state suit and lost business/reputational injury suffice as injury to business or property. | Payments to Ganieva predate the alleged enterprise; asserted business injuries are speculative/unripe. | Dismissed: No cognizable, ripe RICO injury pled; earlier payments predate enterprise and future losses are speculative. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims | Federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction and adjudicate defamation and contract claims. | Court should dismiss state claims if federal claims are dismissed. | Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state‑law claims without prejudice (comity/efficiency favored state adjudication). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (U.S. 2009) (elements of an association‑in‑fact enterprise)
- H.J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (relatedness and continuity for RICO pattern)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1997) (RICO conspiracy knowledge/agreement standard)
- Satinwood (First Cap. Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc.), 385 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2004) (common purpose and illegal intent for enterprise)
- Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., 187 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1999) (elements of §1962(c))
- Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2018) (litigation activity alone, even if frivolous, generally cannot be a RICO predicate)
- Hecht v. Com. Clearing House, Inc., 897 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1990) (RICO civil conspiracy requires specific agreement to commit predicate acts)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir. 1988) (ripeness for RICO damages; injury must be clear and definite)