83 F.4th 948
5th Cir.2023Background
- Sharon Lewis, an LSU assistant athletic director, internally reported head coach Les Miles for sexual harassment in 2012–2013; LSU retained Taylor Porter to investigate and produced a private Taylor Porter Report (May 15, 2013) that remained internal and matters were privately settled.
- USA Today published allegations in November 2020 and successfully litigated for a redacted release of the Taylor Porter Report; LSU then released a separate Husch Blackwell Report (March 3, 2021).
- Lewis sued on April 8, 2021 alleging Title VII, Title IX, and civil RICO claims, alleging schemes to conceal the Taylor Porter Report and retaliate against her for reporting Miles.
- The district court dismissed many claims as time-barred on December 2, 2021, allowed amendment under narrow parameters, and ultimately dismissed all RICO claims with prejudice on June 16, 2022 for being untimely as to pre-April 8, 2017 injuries and for failing to plead proximate causation.
- Lewis’s motions for reconsideration and to alter judgment were denied; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal of the RICO claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the RICO limitations period accrue (injury-discovery/separate-accrual)? | Lewis: accrual ran from March 2021 when Husch Blackwell Report publicized the scheme. | Defendants: accrual occurred when Lewis discovered or should have discovered injuries earlier (as early as 2013). | Accrual follows discovery rule; Lewis knew or should have known of injuries by 2013; claims for injuries discovered before April 8, 2017 are time-barred. |
| Can equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment extend the limitations period? | Lewis: Defendants fraudulently concealed Miles’s liability and kept Taylor Porter Report off-site, preventing timely suit. | Defendants: no extraordinary deception; keeping a report at counsel does not toll without plaintiff diligence. | Tolling/fraudulent concealment not shown; Lewis failed to plead due diligence and was not prevented from earlier inquiry; tolling denied. |
| Did Lewis adequately plead proximate causation for RICO injury (prudential standing)? | Lewis: Defendants’ predicate acts (mail/wire fraud, obstruction, retaliation, interstate travel) directly caused her employment and business harms. | Defendants: alleged predicate acts harmed others (LSU, complainants, Board) and any causal chain to Lewis is too attenuated. | Held: Pleading fails proximate-cause requirement; injuries are rooted in employment retaliation, and the alleged predicate acts do not directly lead to Lewis’s harms. |
| Should the court take judicial notice or decide res judicata on appeal? | Lewis: sought judicial notice of additional privilege logs and district-court rulings to support concealment and misconduct. Taylor Porter Defendants raised res judicata late on appeal. | Defendants: urged notice/res judicata. | Denied judicial notice (facts in dispute and used as proof). Denied late res judicata motion as improperly raised first on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. Nat’l Med. Enters., 230 F.3d 765 (5th Cir.) (announcing injury-discovery and separate-accrual rules for RICO)
- Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (fraudulent concealment requires due diligence to toll RICO limitations)
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987) (four-year limitations period applies to RICO civil suits)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (proximate causation and prudential standing analysis for statutory claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enters., L.L.C., 983 F.3d 779 (5th Cir.) (RICO proximate-cause must show claim "led directly" to injury)
- Ramirez v. City of San Antonio, 312 F.3d 178 (5th Cir.) (equitable tolling requires active misleading or extraordinary prevention)
- Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 658 F.3d 452 (5th Cir.) (equitable tolling is a narrow, sparingly-applied doctrine)
- Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475 (5th Cir.) (do not accept conclusory allegations; construe well-pleaded facts favorably)