Pitts v. Turner and Boisseau Chartered, 86-2442
Decision Date | 05 July 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 86-2442,86-2442 |
Citation | 850 F.2d 650 |
Parties | RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6982 Dr. Robert E. PITTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TURNER AND BOISSEAU, CHARTERED, Lee Turner, Eldon L. Boisseau, Hal D. Meltzer, John L. Carmichael, Deborah L. Carney, Casey Law, Cynthia G. Barrett, Interstate National Insurance, Maginnis and Associates, Robert T. Stephan, Harold S. Youngentob, H. Phillip Elwood, Arthur E. Palmer, Edwin D. Smith, and Justice B. King, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Fred W. Phelps, Jr. and John R. Balhuizen of Phelps-Chartered, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jeffrey Jones of Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan & Glassman, Topeka, Kan., for defendants-appellees Turner and Boisseau, Chartered, Lee Turner, Eldon L. Boisseau, Hal D. Meltzer, John L. Carmichael, Deborah L. Carney and Casey Law.
William Scott Hesse, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan., for defendants-appellees Cynthia G. Barrett and Robert T. Stephan.
Robert J. Perry of Marshall, Hawks, Hendrix, Schenk & Nichols, Topeka, Kan., for defendants-appellees Interstate Nat. Ins. and Maginnis and Associates.
Alan P. Blinzler of Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, Overland Park, Kan., and Williams H. Sanders, Sr. of Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants-appellees Harold S. Youngentob, H. Phillip Elwood, Arther E. Palmer, Edwin D. Smith and Justice B. King.
Jerry R. Palmer, Topeka, Kan., for defendant-appellee Cynthia G. Barrett.
Martha Coffman-Gallagher, Lawrence, Kan., for defendant-appellee Casey Law.
Before ANDERSON, SETH and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal of the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(2), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and pendent state claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective business advantage and negligence.
The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. Appellant prior to this suit was involved in a proceeding with the Kansas Dental Board regarding his license to practice dentistry in Kansas. Appellant in that action was represented by Turner and Boisseau, Chartered. After his license was revoked appellant filed a civil rights suit, No. 84-4207, against the Kansas Dental Board, its members and its investigators. Turner, who had represented appellant in the revocation proceedings, this time assisted State Attorney General Stephan in representing the Secretary of the Dental Board. Appellant filed this action October 15, 1984 against the law firm of Turner and Boisseau and the members of the firm individually: Lee Turner, Eldon L. Boisseau, Hal D. Meltzer, John L. Carmichael, Deborah L. Carney, and Casey Law; the Kansas Dental Board: Cynthia G. Barrett, member and secretary of the Board; Interstate National Insurance and Maginnis and Associates, carrier and agent of the Board; Robert T. Stephan, State Attorney General who was co-counsel in No. 84-4207; Harold S. Youngentob and H. Phillip Elwood, Board investigators; and Arthur E. Palmer, Edwin D. Smith and Justice B. King, attorneys for the investigators in No. 84-4207. In this action appellant contends the defendants who were aware of the fiduciary relationship between appellant and Turner conspired with Turner and others to get him to come to work for them and share information he learned in the revocation proceedings. As a result of this, appellant alleges his civil rights have been violated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(2) and their actions violated RICO. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Appellant filed an amended complaint July 25, 1986. On August 26, 1986 the district court entered its order dismissing appellant's amended complaint and his pendent state law claims. This appeal followed.
In Shaw v. Valdez, 819 F.2d 965, 968 (10th Cir.), we stated what the standard of review is for dismissals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6):
(Citations omitted.)
Appellant contends the trial court erred in dismissing his claim under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq. or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In Torwest DBC, Inc. v. Dick, 810 F.2d 925, 927-929 (10th Cir.), we discussed what a plaintiff must plead in order to establish a RICO violation:
"A violation of section 1962(c) thus 'requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.' Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). RICO defines racketeering activity as, inter alia, any act that is indictable under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (mail fraud) or 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (wire fraud). See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1)(B). RICO also states that a ' "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity.' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5).
....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaplan v. Reed, CIV.A. 97-S-857.
...[it] him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see, also, Pitts v. Turner and Boisseau, Chartered, 850 F.2d 650, 652 (10th Cir. 1988). Teresa Koehn also moves to dismiss for failure to effect valid service of process of the second amended compla......
-
Marshall v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS FOR JOHNSON CTY.
...Standard of Review—Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) The Tenth Circuit, in Pitts v. Turner and Boisseau Chartered, 850 F.2d 650, 652 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied in 488 U.S. 1030, 109 S.Ct. 838, 102 L.Ed.2d 970 (1989) (quoting Shaw v. Valdez, 819 F.2d 965, 968 (10th Cir.......
-
Raymark Industries, Inc. v. Stemple, 88-1014-K.
...has a definite purpose, the completion of which will end the scheme, does not have sufficient "continuity". See also Pitts v. Turner & Boisseau, 850 F.2d 650 (10th Cir.1988); Garbade v. Great Divide Mining & Milling Corp., 831 F.2d 212, 213-14 (10th Cir.1987); Condict v. Condict, 826 F.2d 9......
-
Johnson v. Heath
...needed only to allege "some facts from which at least a threat of ongoing illegal conduct may be inferred." Pitts v. Turner & Boisseau Chartered , 850 F.2d 650, 652 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting Torwest DBC, Inc. v. Dick , 810 F.2d 925 –27 (10th Cir. 1987) ).By denying continuity based on exten......
-
Rico and the Prime: Taking a Bite Out of Crime?
...methods, results, perpetrators or targets. For decisions of the 10th Circuit Court on this subject, see Pitts v. Turner & Boisseau, Ctd., 850 F.2d 650, 652 (10th Cir. 1988); Garbade v. Great Divide Mining & Milling Corp., 831 F.2d 212, 214 (10th Cir. 1987); Condict v. Condict, 815 F.2d 579,......
-
Emerging Issues Under the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act-colorado's Little Rico
...Condict v. Condict, 826 F.2d 923 (10th Cir. 1987); Garbade v. Great Divide Mining and Milling Corp., 831 F.2d 212 (10th Cir. 1987). 53. 850 F.2d 650, 652 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 838 (1989). 54. See, e.g., Torwest v. Dick, 87 CV 11261, Denver Dist. Ct., Courtroom 18, Order......