Lynch v. Amoruso, 232 F. Supp. 3d 460

Background

Plaintiffs Michael Lynch and Lisa Scarola (pro se) allege defendants (family members and attorneys) conspired to defraud Michael’s father/Scarola’s uncle, Carlton Lynch, of his home and assets by notarizing and mailing a forged deed, creating trusts, and other misconduct.
Defendants include Amoruso & Amoruso, LLP and attorney Sreelekha Chakrabarty Amoruso (handled the conveyance), Carlton’s stepchildren Camille Halliburton Huang and DeMille Halliburton, and attorney Marshall (Michael) Posner (estate attorney).
Plaintiffs assert a civil RICO claim and a § 1983/civil rights claim; facts alleged include forgery/mailings, theft, kidnapping, perjury, and an alleged bribery offer to settle an Arizona probate dispute.
The Surrogate’s Court approved Carlton’s will; the amended complaint does not identify Carlton’s exact date of death but probate materials suggest March 31, 2015.
Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court considered the amended complaint liberally (pro se) but granted motions to dismiss with prejudice as amendment would be futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a substantive RICO violation (pattern of racketeering/predicate acts)	Plaintiffs allege multiple predicate acts (mail fraud, kidnapping, bribery, theft, perjury) showing an enterprise to defraud Carlton	Allegations fail to plead most predicate acts with required specificity; many alleged acts are not statutory predicates	Dismissed: plaintiffs plead only kidnapping plausibly; other alleged acts fail as RICO predicates; one predicate act insufficient for RICO
Whether plaintiffs pleaded continuity (open- or closed-ended)	RICO conduct was ongoing and intended to divert assets (thus continuous)	The scheme ended with Carlton’s death and involved a single limited-purpose scheme and few participants/victims	Dismissed: no open-ended continuity (scheme ended); no closed-ended continuity (limited duration, participants, victims, and single scheme)
Whether plaintiffs alleged cognizable RICO injury and proximate cause	Plaintiffs (Michael and Scarola) suffered property/business injury from loss of inheritance; Scarola also alleges emotional/intangible loss	Injury was to Carlton (immediate victim); Michael’s injury is derivative/indirect; Scarola lacks any property interest and alleges only emotional harms	Dismissed: Scarola lacks RICO standing (no business/property injury); plaintiffs’ injuries are at best indirect and not proximately caused for RICO standing
Whether plaintiffs stated a civil rights claim or have standing to assert Carlton’s constitutional claims	Plaintiffs allege Carlton’s civil rights were violated due to disability (Alzheimer’s)	Allegation is conclusory without facts; plaintiffs cannot assert another person’s constitutional claims	Dismissed: civil rights claim conclusory and plaintiffs lack standing to assert Carlton’s constitutional deprivations

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible to survive 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard)
Spool v. World Child Int’l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2008) (RICO requires pattern and continuity analysis; pleading mail fraud under Rule 9(b))
DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2001) (elements of civil RICO and pattern requirement)
H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (continuity concepts: open- and closed-ended patterns)
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (proximate-cause/standing limits in RICO suits)
Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2003) (RICO requires injury to business or property)
LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (pro se complaints construed liberally but must still state plausible claim)
Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but not excused from plausibility requirement)