71 F. Supp. 3d 163
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (John C. Cheeks, Cheeks of North America, Inc., and others, some unnamed and sealed) sued 40+ defendants including D.C. government officials, councilmembers, and private contractors alleging a bid‑rigging RICO enterprise, bribery, fraud (false non‑collusion affidavits), intimidation, and threats/violence related to D.C. contract bidding.
- Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in D.C. Superior Court with Exhibits C and D sealed; plaintiffs refused to serve those sealed exhibits. The case was removed to federal court.
- Multiple defendants moved for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); other defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs opposed and cross‑moved to amend.
- Defendants argued the complaint is a shotgun pleading: it fails to identify which defendants committed which acts, fails to list causes of action clearly, and uses unnamed/’known and unknown’ parties and sealed exhibits, impeding defense.
- The Court granted motions for a more definite statement, dismissed claims against the District defendants, Council defendants, and Western Surety defendants for failure to state claims (RICO, Sherman/Clayton antitrust, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981), denied plaintiffs’ ex parte/in camera and sealing tactics, and ordered plaintiffs to move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint complying with Rule 8 and service rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint meets Rule 8 specificity / whether Rule 12(e) relief is warranted | Complaint states RICO, antitrust, §1981, and other claims against many defendants; sealed exhibits contain identifying evidence | Complaint is vague/rambling; fails to specify which defendant committed which acts, lists defendants multiple times, uses unnamed parties and sealed exhibits to avoid service | Court granted motions for a more definite statement; ordered plaintiffs to file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint identifying claims, defendants, and serving exhibits properly |
| Whether RICO claims sufficiently plead predicate acts and pattern (and meet Rule 9(b) for fraud) | Alleged bribery, bid‑rigging, false affidavits, threats, obstruction, even murder; characterizes action as RICO enterprise | Allegations are conclusory, fail to identify who committed predicate acts, when, or how; fraud predicates not pleaded with particularity | RICO claims dismissed against District, Council, and Western Surety defendants for failure to plead predicates, pattern, proximate causation, and failure to meet Rule 9(b) |
| Whether antitrust (Sherman/Clayton) claims are sufficiently pleaded | Alleged collusion to dominate bidding process and conspiracy to restrain trade | Pleadings fail to allege concerted action by distinct economic entities or factual basis for an illegal meeting of the minds; allegations are conclusory | Antitrust claims dismissed for failure to plead plausible agreement or concerted action |
| Whether § 1981 claim is adequately pleaded | Plaintiffs assert deprivation of civil rights and damages under § 1981 | Complaint contains no factual allegations that race motivated defendants’ conduct or interfered with contractual relations | § 1981 claims dismissed for failure to allege racial motive or impairment of contractual rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (Rule 8 pleading standards and limits on specificity demands)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must allege facts to make claims plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept conclusory legal allegations; factual plausibility required)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (requirements for RICO pattern and continuity)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (2010) (RICO proximate causation requires direct relation between injury and conduct)
- Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298 (1994) (scope of § 1981 in contractual relations)
- W. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Market Square Assocs., 235 F.3d 629 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (elements of a RICO claim)
- Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology, 735 F.2d 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (antitrust requires concerted action by distinct entities)