Efron v. Embassy Suites (Puerto Rico), Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 99-1679

DAVID EFRON, INDIVIDUALLY, AS A CLASS A SPECIAL PARTNER
OF ES HOTEL ISLA VERDE, S.E., A PUERTO RICO CIVIL PARTNERSHIP,
AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THAT PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

EMBASSY SUITES (PUERTO RICO), INC.,
EMBASSY SUITES (ISLA VERDE), INC., PROMUS HOTEL CORPORATION,
MORA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FIRST BIG ISLAND STEAKHOUSE,
INC., CLEOFE RUBI GONZALEZ, MORAIMA CINTRON DE RUBI,
EMMA M. CANCIO-SANTOS, E.S. HOTEL ISLA VERDE, S.E.,
CORPORACION DE DESARROLLO HOTELERO, AND
FUNDACION SEGARRA BOERMAN E HIJOS, INC.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

Guy B. Bailey, Jr. and Alan M. Dershowitz, with whom
Victoria B. Eiger and Karin B. Morrell were on brief, for
appellant.
Salvador Antonetti-Zequeira for appellees.
 Maria del Carmen Taboas on brief for First Big Island
Steakhouse, Inc., and Emma M. Cancio-Santos.
Arturo Diaz-Angueira and Roberto Feliberti on brief for
Embassy Suites (Puerto Rico), Inc., Embassy Suites (Isla Verde),
Inc., and Promus Hotel Corporation.
Luis Sanchez Betances on brief for Mora Development, Cleofe
Rubi Gonzalez and Moraima Cintron de Rubi.

August 14, 2000
 COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant David

Efron, a member of a limited partnership formed to build and

operate an Embassy Suites hotel in Puerto Rico, claims that

several of his partners intentionally caused the project to

experience financial difficulties in a scheme to extract

additional money from him and other investors and, ultimately,

to squeeze down the value of Efron’s substantial interest in the

partnership. Efron brought a civil suit under the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §

1962(c), (d), and Puerto Rico law. Concluding that the

allegations in the complaint did not show RICO violations, the

court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claims. See

Efron v. Embassy Suites (Puerto Rico), Inc., 47 F. Supp.2d 200

(D.P.R. 1999). We affirm, agreeing with the district court that

appellant has failed to adequately allege a "pattern of

racketeering activity," see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), but adding

elaboration to its rationale.

I. Factual Background

We narrate the allegations contained in the complaint and

RICO case statement in the light most favorable to appellant.

See Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34, 37 (lst

Cir. 1991). Efron and his associates formed the ES Hotel Isla

-3-
Verde, S.E. Partnership ("the Partnership") in 1995 to develop

and operate an Embassy Suites hotel and casino in the Carolina

section of San Juan, Puerto Rico. Efron contributed

approximately $5 million in property and cash, receiving in

return twenty-two percent of the equity in the project. Of the

six other partners, four are defendants in this case: Cleofe

Rubi Gonzalez ("Rubi"); his wife, Moraima Cintron de Rubi

("Cintron"); Mora Development Corporation ("MDC"), a company

owned by Rubi; and Embassy Suites Isla Verde, Inc. ("ESIV"). Two

other partners are described as co-victims, although they did

not join Efron’s suit: Corporacion De Desarollo Hotelero

("CDH"), a public corporation that is a subsidiary of Puerto

Rico’s Department of Tourism; and Fundacion Segarra Boerman e

Hijos ("FSBH"). Also named as defendants were several

corporations affiliated with the defendant partners, including

Embassy Suites (Puerto Rico), Inc. ("ESPR"), a company hired by

the Partnership to manage the hotel, and First Big Island

Steakhouse, Inc., a Rubi-controlled company that leased space

from the Partnership for a restaurant ("Outback"). Emma Cancio

Santos, an attorney for ESIV and Rubi, also was named as a

defendant.

Efron alleges that the defendants deliberately caused the

hotel project to lose money by generating excessive construction

-4-
costs, engaging in sweetheart leases with the on-site restaurant

and gift shop, overpricing rooms, and performing other acts of

mismanagement. According to the complaint, ESPR purposefully

created artificial cash shortfalls, which under the Partnership

agreement could be covered by capital calls to the limited

partners. The agreement specified that a partner who did not

provide the requested capital could have his interest reduced

proportionately. Efron alleges that, to protect his initial

investment and avoid losing his equity, he was forced to invest

an additional $1 million in response to such capital calls.1

Efron filed suit in October 1997. The amended complaint

identified seventeen instances of alleged mail or wire fraud

during a twenty-one-month period as the unlawful acts supporting

a RICO claim, the first of which was a letter sent to the

partners by Rubi on January 11, 1996, stating that the project

was experiencing cost overruns of about $7 million. The

1The complaint elaborated on the improper practices as
follows: the cost overruns allegedly resulted from (1) payments
to a Rubi-owned company in excess of the value of goods and
services received; (2) subcontractor bills from other Rubi
projects that were shifted onto the Partnership, and (3)
construction delays from the late addition to the project of the
Outback restaurant. Cash shortfalls continued to build after
the hotel was completed because the defendants allegedly
overpriced rooms and failed to adequately market the hotel’s
services. In addition, the lease arrangement with Outback
allegedly benefited Rubi to the detriment of the Partnership,
and the lease to the hotel’s gift shop allegedly was below
market value.

-5-
subsequent letters fall into two general categories: (1)

communications that relate to the project’s cost overruns and

possible solutions, namely, capital contributions from the

partners and refinancing, and (2) communications that concern

appellant’s efforts to review the Partnership books and obtain

information about the restaurant and other lease arrangements.

In addition to the substantive RICO claim, see 18 U.S.C. §

1962 (c), the amended complaint asserted a RICO conspiracy cause

of action, see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), as well as claims under

Commonwealth law for fraud, breach of contract, breach of

fiduciary duty, and violation of the Puerto Rico RICO act.

The district court rejected defendants’ argument that the

amended complaint lacked the particularity required for fraud

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), but it concluded that

appellant had not adequately alleged a pattern of racketeering

activity. It alternatively ruled that Efron lacked standing to

bring the RICO claims either individually or derivatively on

behalf of the Partnership. Having dismissed the federal RICO

claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

to hear the Commonwealth law claims. On appeal, Efron contends

that the court improperly viewed the alleged facts and

inferences in the defendants’ favor, leading it to conclude

wrongly that he had failed to establish the elements of a RICO

-6-
violation and conspiracy. He further maintains that the amended

complaint demonstrates his standing, both individually for his

unique damages and derivatively for the Partnership.

We turn now to the issue which we deem dispositive – whether

the amended complaint described a "pattern" of racketeering

activity. We first sketch the general principles governing RICO

claims and then evaluate appellant’s specific contentions in

light of those standards.

II. Discussion

To state a RICO claim under section 1962(c), a plaintiff

must allege each of the four elements required by the statute:

"'(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of

racketeering activity.’" Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 41 (quoting

Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)).2 This

case centers on whether Efron alleged sufficient facts to

support a jury finding of a "pattern," there being no dispute

that the complaint adequately alleged the other components of a

RICO violation. By statute, the "pattern" element requires a

2 Section 1962(c) provides, in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or
associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s
affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity .
. . .

-7-
plaintiff to show at least two predicate acts of "racketeering

activity," which is defined to include violations of specified

federal laws, such as the mail and wire fraud statutes, see 18

U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B), (5). Although showing two predicate acts

is the only statutory requirement, case law establishes that

this is not sufficient to prove a "pattern" – the plaintiff also

must demonstrate that the "predicates are related, and that they

amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity."

H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239

(1989); see also Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 44.

We have more than once remarked upon the difficulty of

articulating concrete guidelines for this "continuity plus

relationship" standard for identifying a pattern. See Schultz

v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat’l Bank, N.A., 94 F.3d 721, 731

(lst Cir. 1996); Apparel Art Int’l, Inc. v. Jacobson, 967 F.2d

720, 722 (lst Cir. 1992); see also H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 236

("[D]eveloping a meaningful concept of 'pattern' within the

existing statutory framework has proved to be no easy task.").3

The Supreme Court has noted that the "relationship" portion of

3 The "continuity plus relationship" description was quoted
by the Supreme Court in H.J. Inc. from the legislative history
of the RICO statute. See 492 U.S. at 239 (quoting 116 Cong.
Rec. 18940 (1970)). Justice Scalia in a concurrence in H.J.
Inc. termed that formulation "about as helpful . . . as 'life is
a fountain.'" Id. at 252 (Scalia, J., concurring).

-8-
the standard is easier to grasp, in part because there exists a

relevant statutory definition in another portion of the

legislation of which RICO was a part. See H.J. Inc., 492 U.S.

at 240. Under Title X of the partially repealed Organized Crime

Control Act of 1970, the pattern requirement was defined "solely

in terms of the relationship of the defendant’s criminal acts

one to another: '[C]riminal conduct forms a pattern if it

embraces criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes,

results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or

otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and

are not isolated events.’" Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3575(e)).

The parties do not dispute the relatedness of the communications

at issue here.

The continuity element, which lacks statutory illumination,

has proved more puzzling. Noting that it is "difficult to

formulate in the abstract any general test for continuity," the

Supreme Court in H.J. Inc. nonetheless provided a starting point

for analysis. See 492 U.S. at 241-43; Feinstein, 942 F.2d at

45. We previously have summarized the court’s guidance as

follows:

For there to be continuity, the plaintiff must show
that the related predicates "amounted to, or posed a
threat of, continued criminal activity." . . . Under
the "amount[ing] to" approach, "[a] party alleging a
RICO violation may demonstrate continuity . . . by
proving a series of related predicates extending over

-9-
 a substantial period of time." H.J., 492 U.S. at 242.
Because RICO was intended by Congress to apply only to
enduring criminal conduct, "[p]redicate acts extending
over a few weeks or months . . . do not satisfy this
requirement." Id. Under the "threat" approach,
however, even where the predicate acts occur in a
narrow time frame and suit is brought before the
pattern has taken definitive shape, the requirement
can still be satisfied by . . . a showing that "the
racketeering acts themselves include a specific threat
of repetition extending indefinitely into the future
[or] . . . are part of an ongoing entity’s regular way
of doing business." Id.

Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 45 (some citations omitted).

The Supreme Court thus described continuity as "both a

closed- and open-ended concept, referring either to a closed

period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its

nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition."

H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 241. The Justices also explained in H.J.

Inc. that showing a "pattern" does not necessarily require proof

of multiple criminal "schemes." Finding that the "multiple-

scheme" prerequisite "brings a rigidity to the available methods

of proving a pattern that simply is not present in the idea of

'continuity’ itself," id. at 240-41, the Court emphasized

instead the temporal focus of the "continuity" requirement.

Thus, one scheme that extends over a substantial period of time,

or that shows signs of extending indefinitely into the future,

can establish a pattern.

-10-
 In this case, the district court ruled that the allegations

in appellant’s complaint failed to establish either type of

continuity. After trimming the number of actionable letters and

faxes to eight,4 it held that "[t]he acts are simply too few and

the time period too short" to establish a closed period of

racketeering activity, see 47 F. Supp.2d at 206,5 and it

concluded that there was no future threat of continuing mail and

wire fraud to establish open-ended continuity. Rejecting

appellant’s contention that the defendants were engaged in a

long-term, ongoing criminal enterprise, it characterized the

conflict as a "bitter local law dispute between partners." Id.

at 210 n.11.

Before we address the court’s conclusion on the merits, we

discuss two preliminary issues. Efron claims on appeal that the

court erred in disregarding the faxes and refusing to consider

all of the specified fraudulent mailings. He claims that, under

New England Data Servs., Inc. v. Becher, 829 F.2d 286 (lst Cir.

1987), he is entitled to an opportunity to particularize the

alleged predicate acts to remedy their deficiencies regarding

4
The court excluded seven faxes because Efron failed to
allege that they had been transmitted interstate and eliminated
two mailings as not in furtherance of the alleged scheme.
5
The court pointed out that, of the viable predicate acts,
all but two occurred during a 90-day period from June to
September 1997.

-11-
when and where the mail or wires were used before his complaint

is dismissed. He extends this argument as well to his general

allegation that, in addition to the seventeen specifically

pleaded communications, there were "literally hundreds of acts"

and a "myriad of mail and wire frauds." But in this case, the

underlying rationale for relaxation of pleading requirements –

that the needed information is likely to be in the exclusive

control of the defendant, see id. at 290 – is absent. The gist

of Efron’s complaint is that he and his non-conspiring partners

were defrauded by communications that were sent to them, and

such communications would not be in defendants’ sole control.

Moreover, any need to flesh out allegations in the complaint

should have been raised first through a renewed request to

conduct discovery and a motion in the district court seeking

leave to amend the complaint to cure the infirmities identified

by that court. See Feinstein, 942 F.2d at 43-44. Nonetheless,

while we consider only those predicate acts specifically alleged

in evaluating the adequacy of appellant’s "pattern" allegations,

see Fleet Credit Corp. v. Sion, 893 F.2d 441, 445 (lst Cir.

1990), we are reluctant in the context of an interstate business

to exclude the faxes on the highly technical ground of

appellant’s failure to plead their interstate quality. We need

-12-
not do so because including them will not change the outcome of

our review.

A second preliminary issue merits comment. It is whether

the pleadings sufficiently indicate that appellant’s injuries

were caused by the predicate acts of wire and mail fraud. That

such a causal nexus must exist is well established. See Holmes

v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 266-68 &

n.12 (1992) (to state a RICO claim, plaintiff must show injury

proximately caused by racketeering activity); Moore v.

Painewebber, Inc., 189 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 1999) (plaintiffs

must show that the defendants’ misstatements were "the reason

the transaction[s] turned out to be . . . losing one[s]"

(citation omitted)); Bonilla v. Volvo Car Corp., 150 F.3d 62,

66-67 (lst Cir. 1998) (RICO requires plaintiffs to show that

they were "injured in [their] business or property by reason of"

the racketeering activity); Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 948 F.2d

41, 44, 47 (lst Cir. 1991) (to avert dismissal under Rule

12(b)(6), civil RICO complaint must state facts showing "a

causal nexus between [racketeering activity] and the harm

alleged"; the "injury itself" must be "the result of a predicate

act"); cf. Beck v. Prupis, 120 S. Ct. 1608, 1617 (2000) (holding

that the injury underlying a RICO conspiracy claim must be

caused not by any overt act but by conduct that constitutes

-13-
racketeering activity or is otherwise unlawful under the RICO

statute).

On the facts, the lack of causation seems to be a

significant possibility. Efron entered the partnership before

any of the alleged predicate acts occurred, and thus without

reliance on any misrepresentations. He asserts that he was

coerced into paying $1 million beyond his original contribution

to preserve his equity, but he does not allege that he was

deceived by the written requests for additional capital.

Instead, he describes his "injury-in-fact" as the prospect of a

squeezed-down equity position in the partnership, which would

have been a by-product of his refusal to contribute all of the

requested funds but not necessarily a loss occasioned by

misrepresentations or false assurances. In his RICO case

statement, Efron suggests that he was the only one of the three

victim partners who was not deceived, asserting that the

defendants "conducted their misdeeds under unsuspecting eyes,

except for Efron." (Emphasis added.)

Despite this seeming weakness in appellant’s RICO claim, we

are disinclined to rest a judgment on a decision of the

causation issue. It was alluded to in appellees’ briefs only in

a list of pleading requirements, and it was the subject of brief

treatment by the parties at oral argument. It is conceivable

-14-
that an extremely generous reading of the complaint might allow

the inference that Efron contributed $1 million beyond his

original investment in response to the defendants’ written

requests because he initially was deceived into believing there

was a legitimate need for the funds. In any event, our

disposition makes it unnecessary to explore further the question

of whether the mailings caused a loss to appellant.

We therefore move to the merits and the issue of continuity,

accepting for purposes of our discussion that all seventeen

alleged acts of wire and mail fraud are viable predicate acts

under the RICO statute. Although the twenty-one month time

frame for these communications meets the Supreme Court’s

requirement for closed continuity of more than "a few weeks or

months," H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 242, it is not so long a period

nor are there so many predicate acts that other indicators of

continuity – or the lack of them – are without significance.

Cf. Fleet Credit Corp., 893 F.2d at 447 (finding that ninety-

five fraudulent mailings over four and one-half years "is the

type of 'long-term criminal conduct’ defined by the [Supreme

Court] as constituting 'continued criminal activity’"); United

States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 209 (3d Cir. 1992) ("[M]ost

courts that have found continuity in a closed period did so in

-15-
cases involving periods of several years.")6; Hindes v. Castle,

937 F.2d 868, 875 (3d Cir. 1991) (collecting cases ranging from

a period of four and one-half to seventeen years).

The Supreme Court in H.J. Inc. noted Congress’s "natural and

commonsense approach to RICO’s pattern element," see 492 U.S. at

237, suggesting that its discussion of temporal factors did not

mean that other considerations were to be entirely ignored.

Indeed, in rejecting the notion that a pattern of racketeering

activity requires proof of multiple schemes, the Court noted

that "proof that a RICO defendant has been involved in multiple

criminal schemes would certainly be highly relevant to the

inquiry into the continuity of the defendant’s racketeering

activity." Id. at 240. Likewise, where the racketeering

activity exceeds in duration the "few weeks or months" that the

Supreme Court in H.J. Inc. deemed inadequate, but is neither so

extensive in reach nor so far beyond the minimum time period

that common sense compels a conclusion of continuity, the fact

that a defendant has been involved in only one scheme with a

singular objective and a closed group of targeted victims also

6 Although the court in Pelullo concluded that 19 months was
a sufficient period for a finding of continuity, see 964 F.2d at
209, it expressed some doubt that the facts established either
open or closed continuity. See id. at 209 n.15, 210. It
nonetheless remanded the case for retrial on the RICO count, as
well as on multiple wire fraud counts whose reversal was based
on evidentiary error.

-16-
strikes us as "highly relevant." Cf. Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge

Merchant Servs., 20 F.3d 771, 780 (7th Cir. 1994) (various

factors considered in assessing continuity, including the number

of victims, the presence of separate schemes, and the occurrence

of distinct injuries); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Stone, 998 F.2d

1534, 1543 (1Oth Cir. 1993) (considering, in addition to

duration, "extensiveness" of the RICO scheme, including number

of victims, variety of racketeering acts, whether the injuries

caused were distinct, and the complexity and size of the

scheme); Pelullo, 964 F.2d at 208 ("We have eschewed the notion

that continuity is solely a temporal concept, though duration

remains the most significant factor.")7; United States Textiles,

Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 911 F.2d 1261, 1269 (7th Cir. 1990)

("'[I]t is not irrelevant, in analyzing the continuity

requirement, that there is only one scheme.’" (quoting

Sutherland v. O’Malley, 882 F.2d 1196, 1204 (7th Cir. 1989)).

Having considered carefully the various factors here, we

have concluded that the allegations do not demonstrate the kind

of broad or ongoing criminal behavior at which the RICO statute

was aimed. In essence, appellant alleges a scheme to diminish

7 The Third Circuit, en banc, later discussed the continuity
requirement at length in a series of opinions. See Tabas v.
Tabas, 47 F.3d 1280 (3d Cir. 1995) (en banc). The majority
adhered to the view that multiple factors may be relevant in
evaluating continuity.

-17-
the value of the project in the short run, pressing plaintiff

and two others to yield up their interests so that the schemers

could own and control the whole project. Although multiple

related acts of deception were claimed to underlay the faxes and

mailings, all allegedly were aimed at the single goal of

transforming the ownership of the Partnership during its early

stages. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 19 (defendants’ goal was "to

dilute the interests of the Special Partners and to siphon away

Partnership assets" to gain "outright control of the

Partnership"). The three named victims were not separately

targeted through repetitions of criminal conduct, which could

have reflected persistent or broad-based crime; their injury

instead resulted from a single set of alleged misdeeds and

occurred at the same time.

This narrow attack on three partners’ participation in a

particular business venture is qualitatively different from the

single scheme underlying H.J. Inc. The plaintiffs there had

alleged that telephone company officials and others had engaged

in multiple acts of bribery over at least a six-year period to

obtain approval for unfairly and unreasonably high rates. 492

U.S. at 250. Thousands of telephone company customers

presumably were injured by the ongoing scheme.

-18-
 Although a RICO pattern need not have countless victims, the

finite nature of the racketeering activities alleged here,

together with their occurrence over a relatively modest period

of time, cannot, in our view, support a jury finding of a RICO

pattern under the "closed" continuity approach. Our own

precedent firmly rejects RICO liability where "the alleged

racketeering acts . . . , 'taken together, . . . comprise a

single effort’ to facilitate a single financial endeavor,"

Schultz, 94 F.3d at 732; see also Apparel Art, 967 F.2d at 723

("[A] single criminal episode, or event, is not a 'pattern’ . .

. [because] its parts, taken together, do not 'amount to or pose

a threat of continued criminal activity.’") (quoting H.J. Inc.,

492 U.S. at 239).8 And, while the cases in this volatile field

understandably cannot all be reconciled, we find ourselves in

good company. See, e.g., Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers

Tenants Ass’n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (combination

of "single scheme, single injury, and few victims . . . makes it

virtually impossible for plaintiffs to state a RICO

8 In Apparel Art, then Chief Judge Breyer noted that the
court deliberately used "a vague term like 'episode'" to
distinguish the concept of an isolated occurrence from the
technical concept of a scheme, as used by the Supreme Court in
H.J. Inc. See 967 F.2d at 722.

-19-
claim");9 Stone, 998 F.2d at 1545 ("Where the scheme has a

limited purpose, most courts have found no continuity."); Sil-

Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507, 1516 (1Oth Cir. 1990)

(affirming dismissal of RICO claim where a "closed-ended series

of predicate acts . . . constituted a single scheme to

accomplish 'one discrete goal,’ directed at one individual with

no potential to extend to other persons or entities" (citation

omitted)); Menasco, Inc. v. Wasserman, 886 F.2d 681, 684 (4th

Cir. 1989) ("Defendants’ actions were narrowly directed towards

a single fraudulent goal.").

Nor is it reasonable to infer from the allegations here that

there is a risk of a broader scheme, or that the fraudulent acts

directed at appellant would continue indefinitely into the

future, either of which might support a conclusion of "open-

ended" continuity. There is nothing to suggest that the

defendants would seek to repeat their fraud in other

partnerships or similar business settings, or to employ mail and

wire fraud indefinitely in the Embassy Suites partnership,

thereby showing that racketeering activity might be a "regular

way of conducting defendant’s ongoing legitimate business . . .

9
In Alban Towers, the court noted that "[t]he number of
alleged predicate acts (fifteen), and the most generous estimate
of the length of time the acts continued (three years . . .),
are not enough to overwhelm the three narrowing factors." 48
F.3d at 1265.

-20-
or of conducting or participating in an ongoing and legitimate

RICO 'enterprise,’" H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 243; cf. Roeder v.

Alpha Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 22, 31 (lst Cir. 1987) ("no

suggestion that defendants used similar means to obtain other

subcontracts, or that they bribed anyone else").

Viewing the Partnership as either the RICO enterprise or

defendants’ "ongoing legitimate business," the scenario painted

by Efron’s pleadings does not threaten the "long-term criminal

conduct" with which Congress was concerned, see H.J. Inc., 492

U.S. at 242. Almost by definition, the alleged fraud had a

limited life expectancy. The scheme’s objective, as reasonably

understood from Efron’s not fully consistent allegations,10 was

10 In paragraph 19 of the amended complaint and on page 6 of
the RICO case statement, for example, Efron describes the
defendants’ goal to be "gaining outright control of the
Partnership." In paragraph 22 of the amended complaint, he
alleges that MDC and Rubi made "continual capital calls either
to defraud the Special Partners of more money or, alternatively,
to try to 'squeeze down’ their interests in the Partnership."
(Emphasis added.) Paragraph 41, section a, described the first
alleged predicate act as a letter sent by Rubi to the special
partners concerning cost overruns. Efron alleges: "This was the
implementation, carrying out, and continuation of the previously
designed scheme to defraud Efron out of additional monies or
alternatively to dilute his interest and to deprive him of the
full realization of his investment, or all of these." In
section r of that paragraph, at the conclusion of the full list
of predicate acts, he asserts: "All of the noted predicate acts
were meant to defraud, misrepresent, mislead, and to deprive the
Special Partners, including Efron, of their ownership interest
in the Partnership."

Thus, although the amended complaint and RICO case statement

-21-
to squeeze appellant and two co-partners out of the partnership

early in its existence so that the remaining partners could reap

greater profits through the self-interested operation of this

hotel and their other businesses. See Vicom, Inc., 20 F.3d at

782 ("[S]chemes which have a clear and terminable goal have a

natural ending point . . . [and] therefore cannot support a

finding of any specific threat of continuity that would

constitute open-ended continuity.").

It is true that the scheme as alleged already had spanned

twenty-one months, and that its exact endpoint could not be

ascertained from the pleadings because it depended upon Efron’s

and the other victim partners’ refusal to respond to capital

calls large enough to result in squeezing down their interests

in the Partnership. This is far different, however, from the

open-ended continuity illustrated by the single scheme described

in H.J. Inc., an endeavor that apparently would have gone on

without end had it not been detected. See 492 U.S. at 250. Had

Efron argued that the defendants planned to operate the hotel

refer to a general goal to defraud Efron and the other victim
partners of "more money," the amended complaint read as a whole
does not depict this as a long-term objective but simply as a
necessary step toward defendants’ specific goal of "tak[ng]
unrestricted control of the enterprise." See RICO case statement
at 7. His brief and oral argument were framed similarly. See,
e.g., Brief at 27 ("By their nature, the [defendants’] goals
will not be reached, at least until such time as plaintiff loses
his entire interest in the partnership.")

-22-
indefinitely at a paper loss as a means of perpetually

defrauding him, rather than asserting the specific objective of

squeezing him out of the Partnership, he would have a stronger

argument for an open-ended RICO pattern. His pleadings and

argument, however, depict an undertaking with a soon-to-be

reached endpoint. Indeed, Efron’s refusal to contribute any

more funds and his decision to file suit to protect his interest

suggest that the objective was virtually accomplished.

We note that c ourts, including our own, have suggested that

RICO claims premised on mail or wire fraud must be particularly

scrutinized because of the relative ease with which a plaintiff

may mold a RICO pattern from allegations that, upon closer

scrutiny, do not support it. See, e.g., Schultz, 94 F.3d at

732; Roeder, 814 F.2d at 31. The Seventh Circuit has been

explicit in cautioning against finding continuity too easily in

the context of a single dishonest undertaking involving mail or

wire fraud:

Virtually every garden-variety fraud is
accomplished through a series of wire or mail fraud
acts that are "related" by purpose and spread over a
period of at least several months. Where such a
fraudulent scheme inflicts or threatens only a single
injury, we continue to doubt that Congress intended to
make the availability of treble damages and augmented
criminal sanctions [under RICO] dependent solely on
whether the fraudulent scheme is well enough conceived
to enjoy prompt success or requires pursuit for an
extended period of time. Given its "natural and
common sense approach to RICO’s pattern element," we

-23-
 think it unlikely that Congress intended RICO to apply
in the absence of a more significant societal threat.

United States Textiles, Inc., 911 F.2d at 1268 (quoting

Marshall-Silver Constr. Co. v. Mendel, 894 F.2d 593, 597 (3d

Cir. 1990)11); cf. Tabas v. Tabas, 47 F.3d 1280, 1290 (3d Cir.

1995) (en banc) ("The inclusion within the scope of civil RICO

of [mail and wire fraud], more prevalent in the commercial world

than in the world of racketeers, has caused concern that RICO

sweeps too broad a swathe."); Menasco, 886 F.2d at 683

("Congress contemplated that only a party engaging in widespread

fraud would be subject to such serious consequences. . . . The

pattern requirement . . . ensure[s] that RICO’s extraordinary

remedy does not threaten the ordinary run of commercial

transactions; that treble damage suits are not brought against

isolated offenders for their harassment and settlement value .

. . .").

In sum, while the complaint pleads a series of related

racketeering acts and permits an inference that defendants

defrauded appellant and two of his partners, we agree with the

district court’s determination that no reasonable jury could

11In Tabas, 47 F.3d at 1293 n.17, the Third Circuit noted
that, to the extent Marshall-Silver could be read to require the
existence of a "societal threat" to establish RICO continuity,
it is overruled. We deem this narrowing of Marshall-Silver
unimportant for present purposes.

-24-
find that these allegations establish a RICO "pattern." Taken

together, the acts as alleged comprise a single effort, over a

finite period of time, to wrest control of a particular

partnership from a limited number of its partners. This cannot

be a RICO violation.

III. Other issues

Our conclusion that appellant has failed to adequately plead

a substantive violation of RICO makes it unnecessary for us to

consider his other claims of error. Questions concerning his

standing obviously are moot. In addition, his conspiracy claim

is without merit. A conspiracy claim under section 1962(d) may

survive a factfinder’s conclusion that there is insufficient

evidence to prove a RICO violation, Howard v. America Online,

Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2000), petition for cert.

filed, 68 U.S.L.W. 3003 (U.S. June 27, 2000) (No. 99-2089), but

if the pleadings do not state a substantive RICO claim upon

which relief may be granted, then the conspiracy claim also

fails, id.; see also Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65

(1997) ("A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which,

if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive

criminal offense . . . .").

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

-25-
-26-