Judge George Daniels
Defendants sought dismissal, for lack of diversity, of Holmes’ complaint that they fraudulently induced him and a church into a real estate development deal to swindle the property. Holmes argued his complaint should be read as asserting civil RICO violations. Finding Holmes’ complaint did not assert a colorable RICO violation, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. District court adopted the magistrate’s recommendations. In ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, the court noted Homes’s complaint, not based on federal law, did not assert a RICO claim. The magistrate correctly found defendants’ use of the mail or wires—which Holmes argued constituted mail fraud violating RICO and supported an inference of a “pattern-of-racketeering activity” incident—not supported by pleaded facts. Holmes’ proposed amended complaint did not plausibly allege facts showing a pattern of racketeering. All alleged predicate acts occurred within 12 months of 2006 and could not be considered a “substantial period of time” to show “closed-ended” continuity. More importantly, the alleged acts of mail and wire fraud did not involve a “complex, multifaceted conspiracy” and were subparts of a singular act.
