Hacker v. Michael L. Hacker, an Individual, James O. Hacker, an Individual, Hacker Cattle Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:15-cv-01258-DAD-MSJ,1:15-cv-01258-DAD-MSJ |
| Parties | CASEY L. HACKER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. HACKER, an individual, JAMES O. HACKER, an individual, HACKER CATTLE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 7, 2016, Casey Hacker ("plaintiff") filed pro per1 a second amended complaint against his brother, Michael Hacker ("Michael"), his father, James Hacker ("James"), and acattle-feed business owned and operated by Michael and James, Hacker Cattle Corporation ("HCC").2 (Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiff alleges defendants engaged in repeated fraudulent and extortionate conduct in order to deprive him of his share of a family trust, and in doing so violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.
On May 2, 2016, defendant Michael filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 28.) Defendant Michael subsequently filed an amended motion to dismiss on May 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 30.) On May 31, 2016 plaintiff filed his opposition to the amended motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 32.) On June 13, 2016, defendant filed a reply. (Doc. No. 34.) On June 21, 2016, the motion came on for hearing before the court. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf and attorney James Betts appeared on behalf of the moving defendant. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and heard oral argument, for the reasons set forth below defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted with plaintiff being granted leave to amend.
Upon the death of his mother, Ramona Hacker ("Ramona"), plaintiff came to be a beneficiary of a trust consisting of 3,000 acres located in Fresno County, California ("the trust"). (Doc. No. 27, Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") at ¶ 20.) In that SAC, plaintiff alleges as follows. According to the terms of Ramona's will probated in 1982, plaintiff, as one of Ramona's four children, is to inherit a one-fourth share of the 3,000 acres upon the death of his father, defendant James. (Id.) The will also stipulates that should any of Ramona's four children die without living issue that son's share will "be divided between the living sons [sic] or deceased sons [sic] issues." (Id. at ¶ 23.) According to plaintiff, defendants have engaged in a 22-year scheme aimed at cheating him out of his inheritance, the current manifestation of which involves leaving him for dead in Thailand with a failing liver. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-76.)
Plaintiff traces defendants' scheme back to August 8, 1982, before his mother died of cancer. On that day, defendant James blackmailed plaintiff by threatening to "make sure [p]laintiff never s[aw] any of his inheritance" if plaintiff disclosed a recently discovered affair defendant James was having with a neighbor. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
Defendants then attempted to deprive plaintiff of his inheritance in January 1984 when defendant James stole from him a 1/8th percent interest in HCC. (Id. at ¶ 25.) This theft, though slight, gave defendant James a controlling interest in HCC. (Id.)3 Plaintiff claims he owned a 12.5% interest in the stock of Lackaff Cattle Corporation (which defendant James would convert into HCC) "[a]t the time of Ramona's death," id. at ¶ 24, which the court interprets as indicating an ownership interest prior to the probating of Ramona's will.
Plaintiff also alleges defendants deprived him of his interest in HCC through a series of extortionate acts which took place between February 3, 2002 and February 6, 2002. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-30.) Defendant James allegedly twice visited plaintiff, holding him at gun point each time and demanding plaintiff sign over his shares. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 28.) Defendant Michael called plaintiff, telling him to comply with the demand or defendant James would kill him. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Lastly, defendants allegedly hired two men to fire rifle shots over plaintiff's cabin in order to scare him into complying with their demands. (Id. at ¶ 29.) As a result of this conduct, plaintiff visited his mother's estate attorney to see if the transfer of stock would impact his inheritance. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Though not explicitly alleged in the SAC, it appears plaintiff did transfer his shares.
According to plaintiff, the latest—and current—iteration of defendants' scheme is a plan to leave plaintiff for dead in Thailand. In May 2013, plaintiff learned he had unusually high liver enzymes and required immediate medical care. (Id. at ¶ 32.) On or about May 28, 2013, plaintiff asked defendants for money to obtain treatment; two and a half months passed without a response, and plaintiff decided to again ask defendant James in August 2013 for assistance. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.) Plaintiff alleges defendant James agreed to give plaintiff a 160-acre parcel of land known as Wildcat Mountain but also told plaintiff he would need to speak with defendantMichael because Michael was now in control of the family property. (Id. at ¶ 35.) According to plaintiff, defendant Michael agreed to loan plaintiff $15,000. (Id. at ¶ 36.) However, upon arriving in Thailand, plaintiff learned the true cost of his treatment would be $25,000. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Plaintiff contacted defendant Michael and requested he be allowed to sell Wildcat Mountain to fund the procedure; however, defendant Michael refused and instead offered to loan him an additional $15,000, which would be deducted from plaintiff's inheritance. (Id. at ¶¶ 46-47.) Defendant Michael faxed plaintiff a promissory note. (Id. at ¶ 48.) Plaintiff never received the additional $15,000, and, when he later contacted defendant Michael to inquire about those funds, defendant Michael "threatened [him] with serious injury and possible death." (Id. at ¶¶ 49-50.) Lastly, plaintiff alleges he contacted defendant James on November 10, 2015 and came to an agreement with defendant James to sell him Wildcat Mountain for $50,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 73-74.) However, during the conversation, defendant James informed plaintiff he needed to speak with defendant Michael about the sale. (Id. at ¶ 74.) Defendant James later disconnected his phone and changed his number, and plaintiff has not been able to contact him since. (Id. at ¶ 75.)
Based on these far-ranging allegations, plaintiff alleges six causes of action against defendants. The first three consist of RICO claims pursuant to § 1962(b),(c), and (d). Plaintiff also alleges one claim of fraud and deceit and two claims of breach of contract.
The procedural history of this matter is somewhat involved. Plaintiff originally filed his complaint on May 19, 2015, alleging federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. No. 1.) However, plaintiff's complaint did not actually present a federal question, containing only state law claims, and defendant Michael moved to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) Before the assigned magistrate judge could address the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"). (Doc. No. 7.) The motion to dismiss was subsequently denied as moot. (Doc. No. 10.) Defendant Michael filed a new motion to dismiss on August 21, 2015. (Doc. No. 14.) On December 15, 2015, a newly assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court grant defendant Michael's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 24.) Those findings and recommendations were never adopted by thecourt. On February 29, 2016, the case was transferred to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 25.) On April 7, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 27.) On May 2, 2016, defendant Michael filed a motion to dismiss—subsequently amended the following day—in which he pointed out the case's procedural irregularity but also expressed a desire to avoid "unnecessary delay" and added expense. (Doc. Nos. 28, 28-1 at 2.) The court resolves this quirk by adopting the December 15, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 24), dismissing the FAC with leave to amend and noting that plaintiff's SAC is the current operative complaint.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). It is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff"can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents that are not physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial