Id. Thus, there is ample authority to support the damages alleged by the Plaintiff as “damage to property or business” caused by the Defendants’ extortion to confer standing to sue under the NJRICO. In the context of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), which imposes an essentially similar standing requirement for private actions8, the 7 The term “wrongful debt” is intended in the ordinary sense, and is not to be confused with “unlawful debt” which is a specifically defined term of art in the NJRICO, at N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 meaning debt imposed by illegal gambling or usury. 8 NJCFA standing requires that the claimant “suffer ascertainable loss of moneys or property… as a result” of a violation, similar to NJRICO standing, which requires that the clamaint be “ damaged in his business or property by reason of a violation.” NJSA 2C:4-4(c). Case 3:15-cv-08194-MAS-DEA Document 120 Filed 09/21/18 Page 26 of 39 PageID: 2771 -25- Appellate Division has recently reaffirmed longstanding precedent that imposition of improper debt constitutes sufficient ascertainable loss to confer NJCFA standing, even if the claimant did not pay the improper debt prior to filing suit.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint more than adequately pleads all of the elements of a claim for a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 to 6.2, Civil Rico. The First Amended Complaint complies with Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

See N.J.S.A. § 2C:41–1(d). “[An] ‘enterprise’ is an element separate from the ‘pattern of racketeering activity,’ and ... the State must prove the existence of both in order to establish a [NJ] RICO violation.” Ball, 141 N.J. at 161–62

The amended complaint also alleges sufficient facts to establish a “pattern of racketeering activity,” which is also more broadly defined by the NJRICO, requiring two “incidents” of racketeering activity, rather than the two “acts” required by the federal statute. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(d); 18 USCS § 1961(5).

nited States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001)…………………………………………………………………………..…15 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)……..…16 Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir. 2008) …………….16 Statutes Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6)…………………………………………………………….1, 5 New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) ……………………….……………5 New Jersey RICO (NJSA 2c:41-1, et seq.) ……………………………………….5 Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) ……………………………………………………………….. 16 Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) …………………………………………………………………9,11 Case 2:17-cv-02246-WJM-MF Document 23 Filed 05/11/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 341 5 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this action in Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Bergen by a complaint dated February 10, 2017, seeking redress and judgment for damages incurred as against Defendants for, inter alia, relief permitted under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), and New Jersey RICO (NJSA 2c:41-1, et seq.) See Complaint. As more specifically set forth in the complaint, Defendant Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter “RCS”) and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter “SLS”) placed forced-placed insurance with the Defendant American Modern Insurance Group, Inc and Defendant American Modern Home Insurance Company (hereinafter collectively “AMIG Defendants”).

NJ RICO defines “racketeering activity” as any one of a number of crimes, including, among other things, bribery, extortion, forgery and fraudulent practices, securities fraud, and all crimes set forth in chapter 21 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes. See N.J.S.A. § 2C:41-1(a). In order to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant committed at least two predicate acts and (2) that the incidents of racketeering activity embrace criminal conduct that has either the same or similar purposes, results, participants or victims or methods of commission or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents.

REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-2301(D)(4)(xviii) (securities fraud as predicate act), 13-2314.04(a) (treble damages); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 51:712(D)(1) (securities fraud as predicate act), 15:1356(E) (treble damages); N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:41-1(a)(p) (securities fraud as predicate act), 2C:41-4(c) (treble damages). Case 1:11-cv-09592-WHP Document 195 Filed 12/21/12 Page 33 of 51 23 certain ends, but also to achieve them by particular means.”)

S.D.J., at the United States District Court, 451 U.S. Post Office Courthouse Building, Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey, for the entry of an Order (i) granting summary Case 2:06-cv-04802-DMC-MCA Document 289 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 1 of 3 2 judgment to Chase on the Third Count of its Amended Crossclaim against Arthur Kupperman (“Kupperman”) for all sums due and owing from PGB to Chase, together with post-judgment interest until the date such judgment is satisfied, costs to be taxed, and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be subsequently determined by the Court; (ii) granting summary judgment to Chase on the Tenth and Eleventh Counts of the Amended Crossclaim against Kupperman for treble damages, together with post-judgment interest until the date such judgment is satisfied, costs to be taxed and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. and the New Jersey Racketeering Act (“NJ RICO”), N.J.S.A. § 2C:41-1, et seq.; and (iii) certifying the judgment as final pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of its motion, Chase shall rely upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Statement of Uncontested Material Facts and Declarations of Wayne E. Olson and John M. August.

2 The docket reports for Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy actions, Nos. 04-12511, 05-17625 and 08-24728, are attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit “B”. Case 3:09-cv-03886-JAP-DEA Document 3 Filed 08/19/09 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 42 3 1638304v.1 Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Defendant Fremont: Count I – TILA; Count II – NJ Consumer Fraud Act; Count III – NJ RICO (NJSA 2C-41-1); Count IV – common law fraud; Count V – Unconscionability; Count VI – Negligence; Count VII – Unjust Enrichment; Count VIII – Breach of Contract; Count IX – RESPA; Count X – Negligence of settlement agent and respondeat superior; Count XI – Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Count XII – Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Count XIII – Law against Discrimination (NJSA 10:5-1 et seq.); Count XIV - NJ HOSA; Count XV - HOEPA All of the claims asserted in the Complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Further, since Plaintiffs have been represented by counsel since January, 2004, the discovery rule is not applicable to toll the statutes of limitation.