Opinion
CV 10-3569 (LDW) (GRB)
01-10-2012
EPOCH DATA, INC., Plaintiff, v. PAUL SILVERSTEIN, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEXLER, District Judge
In this action, plaintiff asserts a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and supplemental state law claims arising from defendants' alleged scheme to defraud and steal confidential business information from plaintiff. Defendants move to dismiss the RICO claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6) and the supplemental state law claims under FRCP 12(b)(1). Plaintiff opposes the motion.
As stated at the conference on September 28, 2011, the Court finds that plaintiff does not sufficiently plead a RICO claim. The amended complaint does not sufficiently allege a pattern of racketeering activity to satisfy RICO's "continuity" requirement, see H.J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 240-43(1989) (holding that RICO pattern of racketeering activity requires that predicate acts "amount to, or that they otherwise constitute a threat of, continuing racketeering activity"), particularly given that defendants' alleged scheme involved a single, narrow purpose and only several participants directed toward one victim. See, e.g., Medinol Ltd. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 346 F. Supp. 2d 545, 613-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (" 'Courts have uniformly and consistently held that schemes involving a single, narrow purpose and one or few participants directed towards a single victim do not satisfy the RICO requirement of a closed or open pattern of continuity.' " (quoting Lefkowitz v. Bank of New York, 2003 WL 22480049, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2003))). Accordingly, the RICO claim is dismissed.
Given the dismissal of the RICO claim - plaintiff's only federal claim - the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
For the above reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.
SO ORDERED.
________________
LEONARD D. WEXLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 10, 2012