Top Rank Builders, Inc. v. Browning, 2:16-cv-02903

Top Rank Builders, Inc. and Efrain Morales contracted as general contractor and subcontractor for a medical-marijuana facility in Nye County; William Browning, a CAA employee and Nye County building official, allegedly used his position to pressure the project owner to replace Top Rank with a contractor tied to Browning.
Browning (president of American Wind & Solar) allegedly delayed permits, solicited property owners, and caused a baseless complaint to be filed against Top Rank with the Nevada State Contractors Board.
Plaintiffs sued Charles Abbott Associates (CAA), Browning, American Wind & Solar, and Nye County, asserting federal RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962) and Nevada state racketeering claims (NRS § 207.470) against Nye County among other claims.
Plaintiffs allege Nye County had actual or constructive knowledge of Browning’s misconduct and failed to enforce the PSA prohibition on CAA employees having financial interests in county-related matters.
Nye County moved to dismiss the federal and state racketeering claims, arguing a government entity cannot form the requisite criminal intent for RICO liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nye County can be liable under federal RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962)	County knew of and failed to stop Browning’s racketeering conduct, so county is liable	Government entities cannot form the malicious/criminal intent required for RICO and thus are improper RICO defendants	Dismissed: Government entities cannot be defendants under federal RICO; amendment futile
Whether Nye County can be liable under Nevada civil racketeering (NRS ch. 207)	State statute allows civil RICO claims; county’s knowledge/inaction supports liability	Nevada law should be interpreted like federal RICO; government entities lack required criminal intent	Dismissed: Court predicts Nevada Supreme Court would follow Ninth Circuit and bar government-entity RICO liability; amendment futile

Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir. 1996) (government entities cannot form RICO intent; not proper RICO defendants)
Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1991) (RICO liability cannot be imposed on a governmental body via respondeat superior or agency principles)
Hale v. Burkhardt, 764 P.2d 866 (Nev. 1988) (Nevada civil RICO statutes are patterned after federal RICO)
Siragusa v. Brown, 971 P.2d 801 (Nev. 1998) (distinguishing Nevada and federal RICO pleading elements but requiring criminal activity under state statute)
Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2004) (futility is a basis to deny leave to amend)
Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation Int’l Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal courts must predict state supreme court decisions when state law is unsettled)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim to relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts accept well-pleaded facts but not legal conclusions)