Pizarro v. Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp.

Background

Maria Jose Pizarro and Jose E. Castro, together with Eladio Castro Productions, Inc., moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on counterclaims and third-party claims brought by Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp., Santiago Quezada, and Santiago Quezada Jr. The claims included alleged wire fraud, money laundering, monetary transactions involving property derived from unlawful activity, interstate transportation of stolen property, civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state-law claims.

The defendants alleged that Pizarro and alleged co-conspirators stole more than $435,000 between April 2017 and July 2018. The opinion states, however, that the defendants testified they had no evidence that Pizarro or Castro took money from Euros El Tina, that no money was stolen before 2019, and that only alcohol bottles were stolen in 2019 before the business closed. The court described the supporting evidence as self-serving, conclusory, and internally inconsistent.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that there is no implied private right to sue under the federal criminal statutes cited by the defendants. In other words, those statutes did not authorize the defendants to bring these civil claims themselves.

As to the civil RICO and state-law claims, the court concluded that the defendants failed to show either that they suffered losses or that the movants’ alleged conduct caused any losses. The court also rejected the request for additional discovery because discovery had closed under a July 25, 2022 order, and the defendants should have known about their alleged losses from their own books and records before filing their claims.

The court separately granted Castro’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11. The opinion states that Quezada Jr. testified he had no factual basis for believing Castro helped Pizarro steal from the defendants, other than Castro’s friendship with Pizarro, and could not show that anything had been stolen. The court found that continuing to pursue the claim without factual or legal support was sanctionable.

Disposition

The court granted Pizarro and the Castro parties’ motions for summary judgment and granted Castro’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Pizarro and the third-party defendants on the counterclaims and third-party claims and to terminate the specified open motions. The ruling also applied to the remaining defendants who had been served but had not retained counsel. Castro was directed to provide the other side with contemporaneous records of expenses attributable solely to defending the third-party claims by September 19, 2024; if the parties could not agree on the amount within two weeks, a motion was due October 10, 2024.