Walters v. McMAHEN, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72332

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Perdue Farms employees alleging a RICO conspiracy to depress wages by hiring illegals and attesting to false work documents.
Defendants moved to dismiss/transfer and Perdue sought intervention; case later transferred from Alabama to Maryland.
Plaintiffs allege a scheme across multiple Perdue facilities where HR staff accept fraudulent documents to hire unauthorized workers.
Predicate acts include 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. §1546(b)(1)-(3); Plaintiffs seek relief under §1962(d).
Court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard to pleadings and ultimately dismisses with prejudice.
Judicial posture: motion to dismiss granted; case dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint adequately pleads a §1962(d) conspiracy	Walters argues a detailed conspiracy exists across facilities.	Defendants contend no plausible agreement or intent shown.	Dismissed; no plausible conspiracy pleaded.
Pleading standard applicable to RICO conspiracy claims	Rule 8 should govern pleading.	Rule 8 is insufficient; need heightened pleading.	Rule 8 (and potentially Rule 9(b)) applied; claims fail under Twombly/Iqbal.
Independent intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applicability	Plaintiffs contend exceptions apply.	Doctrine bars claims when parties are within a single corporate entity.	Claims barred by intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.
Adequacy of predicate acts under §1324(a)(3) and §1546(b)	Allegations show hiring of many aliens and false attestations.	No specific, plausible facts of knowling hires or fraudulent attestations; generalized assertions.	Predicates not plausibly pled; no concrete facts of illegal hiring/false attestation.
Remedy: leave to amend given fundamental deficiencies	Amending could cure pleading defects.	Amendments would be futile given doctrine and pleading standards.	Dismissal with prejudice; amendment would be futile.

United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748 (4th Cir. 1990) (requirement that co-conspirator must agree to another's violation under §1962(d))
Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (Supreme Court 2000) (overt acts not racketeering do not support §1962(d) claim)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; more than mere recitals required)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; threadbare recitals insufficient)
Nichols v. Mahoney, 608 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (similar civil RICO theory rejected; unlawful employment of aliens not a predicate act)
Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, 543 F. Supp. 2d 842 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (similar RICO claims dismissed; pre/post-Iqbal context noted)
Hall v. Thomas, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (N.D. Ala. 2010) (similar civil RICO claims declined; reliance on Mohawk distinction)
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (influential on conspiracy theory; Mohawk distinguishable)
Cedric Kushner Promotions Ltd. v. Don King, 533 U.S. 158 (U.S. 2001) (limits intracorporate conspiracy implications)
ePlus Tech., Inc. v. Aboud, 313 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2002) (intracorporate conspiracy generally applicable to non-antitrust conspiracy claims)