Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Limited

Background

Pro se plaintiff Peter Nikola Pesic brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 et seq., against numerous domestic and international entities and individuals. The court had previously directed Pesic to explain why his Fourth Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to allege RICO standing, whether he should receive permission to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, whether he could state a plausible contract claim against Robert Sawatsky, Talinka Trading Inc., and Barry Tilley, and whether his domicile supported federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

RICO Claims

The court dismissed the RICO claims because Pesic did not adequately allege the direct economic injury required for RICO standing. Pesic asserted that reputational harm affected his income and growth, but the court found that statement too general. The court explained that reputational injury supports a RICO claim only when the plaintiff identifies actual economic losses, such as a specific lost business opportunity, and explains how the defendant’s conduct caused them.

Pesic also alleged that two defendants used a forged passport to confirm their identities, preventing him from exercising contractual rights and disposing of certain securities without violating a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act. He contended that this caused him to incur fees while continuing to hold the securities. The court found that alleged chain of events too indirect and uncertain to establish the required causal connection. It also found that Pesic was not the direct victim of the alleged crime.

Proposed Contract Claims and Jurisdiction

The court was preliminarily satisfied that it would have diversity jurisdiction over a contract claim against Sawatsky, Talinka Trading, and Tilley. Based on Pesic’s declaration, the court concluded, at this stage, that he had sufficiently shown that he was a citizen of California, even though he was temporarily residing in South Africa for medical treatment. The opinion states that Pesic identified a last permanent residential address in San Francisco, voter registration there, substantial family connections to the area, payment of taxes in the United States, and plans to retire in Northern California in 2025.

The court also found that Pesic’s memorandum, read liberally because he was representing himself, outlined a potentially valid breach-of-contract claim against those three defendants. Pesic alleged that contractual relationships required them to pay commissions, charges, and other costs associated with maintaining their securities. The court noted that a contract complaint must provide facts about contract formation, including the date, major terms, parties, and assent. Although the Fourth Amended Complaint lacked those details, the court determined that Pesic might be able to add them in another amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed Pesic’s Fourth Amended Complaint and granted him leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint limited to contract claims against Sawatsky, Tilley, and Talinka Trading. The deadline was February 24, 2025. The court specifically stated that the Clerk should not close the case immediately, but that judgment and closure would be directed if Pesic did not timely file the amended complaint.