^^^^^^Keep hope alive^^^^^ Keep hope alive^^^^^
The 10h trick was systematically dissected by our legal team. I think you'll come up short, MC as you usually do when you enter the room.
Remember this?
How did the RICO suit work out for ya? Dismissed....
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, ü
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AWAPPA, LLC; JOHN MCILVENNA;
MITCH VASIN; PETER BLANDINO;
ERIC FERGUSON; JEFF KOONTZ; RUSS
PAYNE; KEITH KRUEGER; ERIC
AUXIER; CHRISTOPHER CUNDARI;
JACK TOOKE; DAVID BRAID; ROBERT ý No. 08-1858
J. NARLOCH; BRUCE A. HANNAH;
RON GABALDON; SHAWN METZKER;
JURIE MAREE; JOHN DOES 1-100;
AL CASBY; JEFF ABBOTT; MARK
DOYAL; LARRY DIEHL; STEVE
TRIMMER; CJ SZMAL; JOE HEIL;
KEVIN STEELE,
Defendants-App
It is no surprise, then, that the conduct USAPA alleges
closely resembles conduct we have found not to demonstrate
continuity after H.J. Inc.
See, e.g.,
GE Inv. Partners, 247 F.3d
at 549 (finding no continuity where the defendants’ "single
goal" was to fraudulently inflate the value of and then sell
their controlling interest in a company); Menasco, 886 F.2d at
684 (finding no continuity where "[d]efendants’ actions were
narrowly directed towards a single . . . goal," "involved but
one set of victims," and took place over a relatively short
period of time).
Because the appropriate "commonsensical, fact-specific"
examination of the allegations in USAPA’s complaint fails to
yield a pattern of racketeering activity, USAPA has failed to
state a cognizable RICO claim. See Menasco, 886 F.2d at 684.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
IV.
We can quickly dispose of USAPA’s remaining
contentions—that the district court erred in denying it leave
to amend its complaint and in refusing to grant it injunctive
relief.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED