X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Marylena Brown, on behalf of herself and proposed class members, sued the appellees, Protective Life, Banner, and Crescent Bank & Trust, claiming a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, related to Protective Life’s sale of credit life insurance. Brown argues that the district court improperly dismissed her suit for lack of individual RICO standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This court addresses whether Brown alleged a valid RICO injury to her business or property sufficient to afford her RICO standing. HOLDING:The court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Brown’s RICO claim. Crescent Bank & Trust’s motion to take judicial notice and supplement the record on appeal is denied. Crescent Bank & Trust’s motion to strike portions of the appellant’s brief is granted. Brown cites Schaffer v. United States, 362 U.S. 511 (1960), for the proposition that she may aggregate Protective Life’s alleged RICO-violating actions to meet the statutory predicate act requirement. Schaffer did allow aggregation, but only in criminal cases where the separate transactions were substantially related and charged as a single indictment. Brown cites no case extending the rationale of Schaffer to civil cases. Brown does not meet the RICO standing requirements because she cannot allege injury beyond $1,876.70, which is the total amount of her credit life insurance premium. Brown’s first amended complaint alleged predicate acts in excess of $5,000, but those allegations incorporated aggregated premiums paid by unnamed plaintiffs. As stated previously, because she is the only named plaintiff, Brown must allege injury to her business or property. Brown argues that, independent of the disputed insurance premiums, insurance proceeds from the credit life insurance were in excess of the $5,000 RICO threshold. While Brown clearly alleged proceeds as a predicate act in her complaint, she did not raise the issue before the district court in response to Protective Life’s motion to dismiss. The court does not consider arguments that were not adequately briefed before the district court. Assuming arguendo that Brown raised the issue of proceeds in response to Protective Life’s motion to dismiss, the proceeds are insufficient to state a RICO cause of action because the insurance proceeds, which were returned to Brown, did not harm Brown’s business or property. Only the $1,876.60 that Brown paid for the loan � the premium � harmed Brown’s business or property. Whether, and by how much, the insurance premiums and proceeds from Protective Life’s credit life insurance plans harmed other, unnamed individuals is irrelevant to the question of whether Brown has RICO standing. Brown can only allege injury by Protective Life in the amount of her $1,876.70 insurance premium. Because that amount is less than the required $5,000 for federal RICO standing, the court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Brown’s RICO claim. OPINION:Garza, J.; Jolly, Smith and Garza, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.