Mottola v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Background

Carol M. Mottola filed the action without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She asserted claims under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; Fazzone Law; several family members; the Estate of Louis Mark DeNegre; and James E. Tolan.

The complaint described a decades-long dispute involving Mottola’s family and alleged attempted kidnapping when she was a child, wire fraud based partly on social-media postings, and extortion or attempted extortion connected to her participation in a Cravath paralegal program. She sought money damages and an order restricting defendants’ communications and conduct toward her. The opinion also refers to Mottola’s earlier related proceeding involving family members, in which defamation claims were dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

Legal standard

Because Mottola proceeded without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints still must provide enough factual detail to make the requested relief plausible. Legal conclusions alone are not enough.

RICO claims

For a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege, among other things, a criminal enterprise, at least two related racketeering acts forming a pattern, the defendants’ participation in the enterprise, and an effect on interstate or foreign commerce. A civil RICO conspiracy claim also requires facts showing that defendants agreed to form or join such an enterprise and agreed to commit qualifying acts in furtherance of it.

The court held that Mottola failed to state either type of civil RICO claim. It concluded that the alleged family dispute did not plausibly show that Mottola’s family, as described in the complaint, was a criminal enterprise engaged in racketeering activity affecting commerce. The court therefore dismissed the federal RICO claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its additional authority to hear related state-law claims. The court stated that Mottola could not cure the RICO defects by amending the complaint and therefore denied leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Mottola might be asserting, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mottola permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.