Feld Entertainment, Inc. v. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
873 F. Supp. 2d 288
D.D.C.2012Background
- FEI sued ESA Action plaintiffs and counsel alleging RICO, Virginia Conspiracy Act, and common-law torts based on payments to Rider during the ESA Action; the ESA Action previously was dismissed for lack of standing, with Rider found not credible; the ESA plaintiffs allegedly funded Rider to testify and promote a false standing theory; FEI asserts a broad scheme including bribery, witness payments, money laundering, mail/wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and related concealment and fundraising activities; FEI seeks relief on multiple counts in the FAC filed after stay lift in 2010; the court must determine motions to dismiss and how Noerr-Pennington and compulsory counterclaim doctrines apply; the analysis involves standing, statute of limitations, pattern/continuity, enterprise, and other state-law claims; the court ultimately grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEI’s RICO claims were compulsory counterclaims in the ESA Action. | FEI argues ESA Action already involved related claims and compulsory counterclaim rules apply. | Defendants contend ESA and RICO do not arise from the same transaction and FEI lacked necessity to file earlier. | RICO claims were not compulsory counterclaims. |
| Whether Noerr-Pennington immunity bars any of FEI’s claims tied to legislative/administrative advocacy or litigation. | FEI contends some actions are outside Noerr-Pennington immunized activity. | Defendants argue Noerr-Pennington applies to some publicity efforts. | Noerr-Pennington immunity does not shield bribery/misrepresentation; some publicity activities remain immune. |
| Whether FEI has standing and proximate causation for predicate acts not directly tied to the ESA Action. | FEI asserts direct injury from donors’ fraud and litigation costs. | Defendants argue connection is too remote for certain predicate acts. | FEI has standing for fundraising predicate acts; lacks standing for certain legislative/administrative predicate acts. |
| Whether the RICO enterprise and participation allegations against HSUS, Lovvorn, and Ockene are sufficient. | FEI contends these defendants operated as part of the enterprise and participated in core predicate acts. | Some defendants plead insufficient direct liability or distinct enterprise. | FAC adequate on some defendants for participation/conspiracy; certain direct-liability claims dismissed for others. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. (2009)) (pleading standard: plausibility required; threadbare allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. (2007)) (plausibility standard; required to plead plausible claims)
- Moore v. N.Y. Cotton Exch., 270 U.S. 593 (U.S. (1926)) (flexible meaning of “transaction” for compulsory counterclaims)
- Whelan v. Abell, 48 F.3d 1247 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Noerr-Pennington limits; bribery not protected)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (U.S. (2008)) (proximate causation in RICO; direct injury from fraud against third parties)