Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc.
Citation | 664 F. Supp. 1193 |
Decision Date | 06 July 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 85 C 357.,85 C 357. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Parties | William A. BRANDT, Jr., Plaintiff, v. SCHAL ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
David L. Campbell, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Jeff Harris, John J. Foran, Karen A. Suizzo of Foran, Wiss & Schultz, Chicago, Ill., for Schal Assoc.
Robert A. Downing, David F. Graham, Eugene A. Schoon, John A. Heller of Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., for Northwestern.
Suing as the assignee of Crescent Corporation ("Crescent"), William A. Brandt, Jr. ("Brandt") charges Schal Associates, Inc. ("Schal"), Richard C. Halpern ("Halpern") and Evans N. Spileos ("Spileos") (collectively "Schal Defendants") and Northwestern University ("Northwestern") with having violated:
Despite the nearly 2½ year life of this action, it still remains in the pleading stage.2 Now Schal Defendants and Northwestern have again moved under Fed.R. Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) for dismissal of the RICO claims. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, Northwestern's motion is granted and Schal Defendants' motion is denied.
Schal manages the construction of high-rise buildings (¶ 3). Both Halpern and Spileos are officers, directors, employees and principal shareholders of Schal (¶¶ 5 and 6). Schal was engaged to act as agent for:
On January 22, 1981 Schal, acting for M.O.W., hired Crescent to furnish and install the window wall system for the One Mag Mile Project for $4,885,000 (¶¶ 8 and 24). After Crescent had begun work on the project, Schal issued numerous directives calling for extra work (¶ 43), including 26 change orders that added $491,996.69 to the contract amount (¶¶ 26 and 36(g)). Those directives were "coupled with promises to pay Crescent for the goods and services provided" (¶ 36(g)).
In connection with the One Mag Mile Project, Schal also issued six backcharges to Crescent (totaling $9,956.10) between March 17, 1983 and February 1, 1984 (¶¶ 36(a)-(f)). Each backcharge represented that Schal had incurred additional costs because of Crescent's actions, so the backcharge amounts would be deducted from the monies due Crescent upon completion of the project (id.).
Crescent has completed all contract and extra work on the One Mag Mile Project. It is still owed $731,268.59 for that work (¶¶ 27 and 28).
On August 27, 1982 Schal, acting for Northwestern, hired Crescent to furnish and install a complete interior and exterior curtainwall and store front system (the "curtainwall system") for the Northwestern Project at a cost of $3,855,000 (¶¶ 10 and 14). As it turned out, the structural steel framing for the Northwestern Project had design defects, causing the framing to be inadequate for the curtainwall system (¶ 17). Defendants knew of those defects when they negotiated and executed the contract with Crescent. but they concealed the flaws from Crescent until October 1982 (id.).
At Schal's request Crescent undertook the redesign of the curtainwall system and assisted Northwestern in finding a satisfactory solution to the engineering and design problems (¶¶ 19-20). Schal and Northwestern assured Crescent that upon completion of the project change orders would be issued to cover Crescent's increased costs of $3,639,888 (¶¶ 20-21 and 35(a)).
Schal also issued 26 backcharges to Crescent (totaling $285,606.51) between October 11, 1983 and November 16, 1984 (¶¶ 35(b)-(aa)). Here too, each backcharge represented that Schal had incurred additional costs because of Crescent's actions, so the backcharge amounts would be deducted from the monies due Crescent upon completion of the project (¶ 34(a)(3)).
Crescent has also fully performed all contract and extra work on the Northwestern Project. It is still owed $4,086,146.40 for that work (¶ 23).
On November 2, 1982 Schal, acting as agent for CBOE, hired Crescent to furnish and install the window wall system for the CBOE Project for $700,000 (¶¶ 8 and 29). After Crescent began that work, Schal issued 18 change orders to the basic contract, covering additional work costing $172,498.37 (¶ 31).
Crescent completed all contract and extra work on the CBOE Project April 23, 1984. It is still owed $8,212.50 (¶¶ 32 and 33).
To some extent the Complaint's RICO allegations are not only fact-conclusory in nature (something both permissible and desirable under the Rules' notice-pleading regime) but also legal-conclusory (something that poses problems in meeting the "well-pleaded" standard—see n. 3). This recital will nevertheless credit the allegations as made, without any effort to cull out any that might be viewed as technically deficient:
Each of Schal Defendants and Northwestern seeks dismissal of Brandt's RICO claims on the ground the Complaint does not adequately allege the existence of a "pattern of racketeering activity."5 All Section 1962 claims require such a pattern (Elliott v. Chicago Motor Club, 809 F.2d 347, 349 (7th Cir.1986)).6
In its decisions since Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985),7 our Court of Appeals has applied "a factually-oriented standard, not a set rule" (Morgan, 804 F.2d at 977), in determining whether RICO claims satisfy the "pattern of racketeering activity" requirement. Examination of those decisions and the standard as it has evolved from them makes it quite plain the Complaint in this case sufficiently alleges Schal Defendants'—but not Northwestern's—involvement in such a pattern.
Morgan, 804 F.2d at 975 (citations omitted) described the "pattern of racketeering...
To continue reading
Request your trial- US ex rel. Hanrahan v. Thieret
-
JA Moore Const. Co. v. Sussex Associates Ltd.
...835 F.2d at 66-67. For this reason, we find that the activity here does not constitute a pattern. See Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc., 664 F.Supp. 1193 (N.D.Ill.1987) ("An undertaking by a contractor engaged in a lawful enterprise to bilk one customer in one construction project of finite ......
-
Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc.
...("Brandt II "), and Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc., 131 F.R.D. 512 (N.D.Ill.1990) ("Brandt III "). See also Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc., 664 F.Supp. 1193 (N.D.Ill.1987), aff'd, 854 F.2d 948 (7th Cir.1988).2 "Backcharges" are credits taken by Schal against a contractor (like Crescent)......
-
Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc.
...Brandt's RICO claim against Northwestern because the complaint failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity. Brandt v. Schal Assocs., 664 F.Supp. 1193 (N.D.Ill.1987). The court noted that the question of "pattern" in civil RICO cases necessarily involves a fact-specific inquiry. Afte......