Plaintiffs file this brief in support of their motion for Motions, including defendants' motions for summary judgment andĭecertification. Order (hereinafter "Mem.") (RD 387) which disposed of approximately ten On September 30, 1999, this Court entered a Memorandum and On July 7, 1999, the Court entered defaultsĪgainst defendants CBG, Oneida Water Co., and Valley Utilities Co., Inc. Granted Plaintiffs' motion (RD 289) to reschedule the deadlines forĮxpert witness reports. Scheduling order (RD 373) which inter alia On September 23,ġ997, this Court granted plaintiffs. On June 19, 1996, this Court entered an order which certified thisĬase as a class action. On December 29, 1995, the Court denied the motion to dismiss ofĭefendant Property Owners Association of the Valley of Lakes ("POA"). Jersey on June 17, 1994, and was transferred on Februto thisĭistrict. This case was filed in the District of New Plaintiffs' motion of (RD 254) as moot, and to have failed toĪpply this Court's Order #1 of Janu(RD 373) regarding expert The beginning date of the class period and failure to apply the separateĪccrual rule, and consideration of the merits of unique defenses. Decertification was based on errors regarding RICO enterprise" element can not be established, as a matter of law, with respect to Arlene Rainess, when she was "aware of at least the general existence of the enterprise", and the CourtĬoncluded that "the evidence may support a single instance of fraud.". Said defense was not found applicable to FEB nor did Ralph Conte move for summary judgment on said defense with respect to the RICO claims.Įrror of law, to have found that that the "associated with a Limitations defense discussed with respect to First Eastern's motion for summary judgment" because Ralph Conte on the RICO claims based on "the statute of Was a clear error to have granted summary judgment for No one could know "the financial status of CBG" because FEB committed a massive fraud upon the bankruptcy court. : not only did numerous misrepresentations take place within the limitations period, but It was an error to grant summary judgment forįEB on Plaintiffs' common law fraud claim based on FEB's statute of , in fact, find that the RICO claims were barred by the statute of limitations nor could the statute of limitations apply to predicate acts which took place after the Ground that "the RICO claims were barred by the statute of limitations" Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to supplement and amend the complaint, on the It was a mistake, and an error of law, to deny The Memorandum erroneously draws a number of inferences, regardingįacts in dispute in the light most favorable to the moving parties. Was a clear error of law to have found that FEB did notĬommit predicate acts of racketeering, when the Court found "aiding and abetting" by FEB, since "aiding and abetting" of the underlying predicate acts constitutes a predicate act, in itself. 1962(d), when the record supports a finding of "aiding and abetting". , to grant summary judgment to FEB for conspiring to violate RICO, pursuant to 18 It was a clear error of law, contravening Salinas 1962(a), (c)Īnd (d), since FEB is liable for RICO violations pursuant to respondeat superior It was a clear error of law, to have grantedįEB's summary judgment motion for claims based on 18 U.S.C. It was a clear error of law, to have failed toĪpply the Supreme Court's operation or management test, set forth in RevesįEB "conducted the affairs of an enterprise". "conducted the affairs of an enterprise" since the Rolo It was a clear error of law to find that Rolo was controlling on the issue of whether FEB įEB's Scheme to Operate and Manage the Enterprise(Complaint, 212-339).Scheme to Continue Racketeering Using Bankruptcy (Complaint, 200-211). VOL Land Fraud and Extortion Schemes (Complaint, 50-193). Regarding the Order of Septem(record document 387) Their Motion for Reconsideration, Reargument, or Alternative Relief, Of expert witness reports for the remainingĭefendants) but granted Plaintiffs' alternative request for permission to file an immediate appeal.
Subsequently entered a Memorandum and Order on Februwhichĭenied Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (except for the scheduling Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Motion for Reconsideration of theĬourt's Memorandum and Order of September 30, 1999. | Exhibits | Supplemental Pleading | Court Decisions |
Valley of Lakes RICO Case: Complaint | News Articles