Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—W.D. Wash.: Vexatious plaintiffs sanctioned $10K for frivolous, harassing claims, (Oct 10, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Two plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act claims were deemed legally and factually baseless, and were consequently dismissed by the federal district court in Seattle. The plaintiffs also were declared vexatious litigants, warranting the imposition of a $10,000 sanction for their harassing the defendants into exhaustion or submission (Rygg v. Hulbert, October 6, 2014, Pechman, M.).

Background. Carolyn Rygg and her son Craig Dilworth (collectively, the Ryggs) filed suit in the Washington state court system, involving a property boundary line dispute with their neighbor. After an unfavorable decision, multiple appeals, and a petition for review from the Washington Supreme Court, the Ryggs filed suit in federal court, alleging a vast conspiracy to deprive them of justice and property, to invade their privacy, and to violate state and federal law. The Ryggs alleged 50 causes of action, but only two made it to the jury trial. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Ryggs’ neighbors, the plaintiffs filed two more materially-similar suits, appealed two decisions, and filed a fourth action for injunctive relief. The defendants—including the Ryggs’ previous attorneys, Washington Supreme Court justices, and the Washington State Bar Association—moved to strike the Ryggs’ proposed second amended complaint, moved to dismiss the RICO and other claims, moved to declare the plaintiffs vexatious litigants, and moved for sanctions.

Motions to dismiss and strike. In support of their RICO claim, the Ryggs alleged that: (1) the defendants in the first federal suit entered into a common interest defense agreement, constituting a criminal enterprise, and (2) the defendants’ racketeering activities and predicate acts included mail and/or wire fraud, because they electronically filed documents with the district court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the RICO claims, finding that they were facially frivolous and failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The remaining counts were also dismissed as duplicative or for judicial immunity.

In addition, the defendants’ motion to strike was granted, as the plaintiffs were simply reiterating claims already presented to various courts and there was no reason to believe that an amendment would be anything but futile.

Vexatious litigants and sanctions. The court declared the plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants, finding: (1) they received notice of the motion, they filed a responsive pleading, and they were aware of the possibility they might be declared vexatious litigants; (2) the extensive litigation record made clear that the plaintiffs’ numerous, abusive filings will not cease without an order from the court; (3) their actions are frivolous and taken to harass; and (4) the order was narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered. Consequently, the plaintiffs are prohibited from filing any other pleading relating to this matter, unless approved by the court.

Sanctions of $10,000 were also granted against the plaintiffs, as: (1) their RICO allegations were made without a plausible pattern of racketeering, in an attempt to bring their already-adjudicated dispute before the federal courts again; (2) the predicate acts alleged were the defendant’s filing of their defense briefs; and (3) the RICO allegations were legally and factually baseless and were intended for the improper purpose of harassing the Defendants into exhaustion or submission.

The case number is C14-237 MJP.

Attorneys: Carolyn Rygg, pro se. Eric A. Mentzer, Attorney General's Office, for David F. Hulbert.

Cases: RICO WashingtonNews