[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
No. 05-11956 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 02-80444-CV-WPD
GARY A. FIORETTI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MICHELLE M. FIORETTI,
Plaintiff,
versus
CFI MORTGAGE,
FIRST UNITED MORTGAGEBANC, INC.,
STEPHEN WILLIAMS,
JAMES T. KOWALCYZK,
WEINICK, SANDERS, LEVENTHAL & COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
ELLEN WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 13, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Weinick, Sanders, Leventhal & Company, LLP and Martin Leventhal
(“the Leventhal defendants”) on plaintiff’s claim against them pursuant to the
Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Influence Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1962(c) and (d). The Leventhal defendants, who are professional accountants,
were alleged by plaintiffs to have violated RICO by engaging in a scheme with
their clients to steal businesses and assets from plaintiffs through sham acquisition
transactions. The case proceeded to trial against the clients, but not before the
district court granted summary judgment as to the Leventhal defendants, finding
that the record raised no genuine issues of material fact as to their participation in a
RICO conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs out of their businesses and assets.
We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment,
applying the same legal standards that govern the district court. Info. Sys. and Net.
2
Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary
judgment is proper when the evidence shows “that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When reviewing a summary judgment, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Beck v. Prupis, 162
F.3d 1090, 1096 (11th Cir. 1998).
After reviewing the record in accordance with these standards of review, we
conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the
Leventhal defendants. The record establishes that their involvement in these
financial transactions amounted to, at most, the performance of their professional
accounting duties for a client. Like the district court, we find no evidence
sufficient to establish that the Leventhal defendants entered into any agreement
with their clients to engage in a scheme to steal business and assets from the
plaintiffs or to commit two RICO predicate acts. Therefore, summary judgment
was proper.
AFFIRMED.
3