Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—4th Cir.: Former attorney’s RICO claims against government officials properly dismissed as not plausible, (Dec 12, 2013)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A former attorney’s suit against numerous judicial, government, and other officials alleging federal and state RICO violations, among other claims, was properly dismissed for failure to establish plausibility, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled (Rodriguez v. Jane Doe, December 11, 2013, Per Curiam). The district court judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

Following his disbarment as an attorney, Isidoro Rodriguez filed suit against numerous judicial, government, state employment commission, and state bar disciplinary board officials alleging a conspiracy to prevent him from practicing law. Specifically, Rodriguez alleged federal and state RICO violations, business conspiracy, treason and misuse office, and sought reinstatement as an attorney and payment of unemployment benefits, among other relief. The district court dismissed his complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and imposed sanctions.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must establish facial plausibility by pleading factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. The federal and Virginia RICO statutes prohibit a person from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. A plaintiff must allege at least two racketeering acts, a continuing pattern, and a relationship among the defendant’s activities showing similar purposes to state a RICO claim.

The appellate court found that the district court did not err in determining that Rodriguez’s complaint did not establish plausibility. Rodriguez alleged that there were two separate and unrelated complaints to the state bar which ultimately led to his disbarment and loss of unemployment benefits. His assertion that a former client and court officials conspired to victimize and injure Rodriguez was not plausible. He also failed to present factual content that such an enterprise or conspiracy existed. Additionally, a reasonable interference could be drawn from the facts and from decisions in prior lawsuits filed by Rodriguez that his claims were without merit.

The appellate court also ruled that the district court correctly determined that the judicial defendants were entitled to judicial immunity. The district court also correctly found that the doctrine of res judicata applied as the suit arose from the same series of transactions as claims resolved in the prior lawsuits filed by Rodriguez.

The case is No. 13-1638.

Attorneys: Isidoro Rodriguez (Rodriguez & Rodriguez) for Isidoro Rodriguez. Farnaz Farkish Thompson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for Jane Doe.

Cases: RICO MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews