The Travel Act prohibits “travel[ ] in interstate or foreign commerce” with intent to promote or carry out specified “unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a). The phrase “unlawful activity” under the Travel Act is a specialized defined term Case 2:12-cv-06371-SDW-MAH Document 55 Filed 01/31/14 Page 35 of 47 PageID: 1501 30 narrowly limited to (1) engaging in an illegal “business enterprise involving gambling,” “liquor,” “narcotics,” or “prostitution”; (2) “extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States”; or (3) money laundering.

In order to prove a violation of the Travel Act, the Government must establish interstate or foreign travel or the use of “the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a). In United States v. Archer, the Second Circuit held that this interstate element could not be established by telephone calls that were entirely pretextual in nature or incidental to the underlying criminal activity.

Section 1952 proscribes traveling in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activity, but the unlawful activities implicated by that section are gambling, liquor, narcotics, extortion, bribery and arson, none of which are at issue here. S e Allen Bros., Inc. v. Byrdak, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11614, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 1999) (Plaintiff alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) “evidently failed to read on to § 1952(b), which defines ‘unlawful activity,’ as used in §1952(a), as including only violations of laws involving gambling, liquor, narcotics, extortion, bribery, or arson, none of which are involved in this case”). (ii) Plaintiffs’ Mail and Wire Fraud Allegations Are Insufficient as a Matter of Law.

Section 1952 relates to traveling in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activity, but the unlawful activities implicated by that section are gambling, liquor, narcotics, extortion, bribery and arson, none of which are at issue here even according to Plaintiffs’ jaundiced view of events. See Allen Bros., Inc. v. Byrdak, No. 98-C-6190, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11614, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July, 26, 1999) (Plaintiff alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) “evidently failed to read on to § 1952(b), which defines ‘unlawful activity,’ as used in §1952(a), as including only violations of laws involving gambling, liquor, narcotics, extortion, bribery, or arson, none of which are involved in this case.”).

3. Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911, 1027 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 1952 in the context of racketeering); Morning Star Packing Co. v. S.K. Foods, L.P., No. 2:09-cv-00208-KJM, 2015 WL 3797774, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2015) (referencing Cal. Pen.

16 The Travel Act prohibits use of interstate “facilit[ies]” to commit specified “unlawful activit[ies].” 18 U.S.C. § 1952(b). The only listed activity that appears remotely relevant is state-law bribery.

Given this, the Court held that an expansive interpretation of Section 1952 could “alter sensitive federal-state relationships … overextend limited federal police resources, and … produce situations in which the geographic origin of customers, a matter of happenstance, would transform relatively minor state offenses into federal felonies;” although it refused to “weigh the merits of these factors,” it held that the absence of any discussion of these factors in the legislative history of Section 1952 showed that Congress did not intend for it to apply to such gambling operations. See id.

88. These willful, knowing and intentional acts violated 18 U.S.C. § 1952. Pattern of Related Racketeering Acts 89.

(FAC¶¶244- 246). Defendants conveniently ignore the plain language of 18 U.S.C. §1952(b)(i)(3) which defines illegal activity as including: “(a)ny act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under Section 1956 or 1957 of this title.” The conduct of Defendants is indictable under both §1956 and 1957.

11 The amended complaint, however, fails to allege adequately essential elements needed for these claims, requiring the dismissal of the RICO-related claims for relief. 11 The amended complaint adds alleged violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, as additional predicate acts. (Amended Complaint ¶ 100-102) Since the extortion and mail and wire fraud claims are insufficient, however, the Travel Act claims are likewise insufficient.