Date: 02-01-2024

Case Style:

Fount Holland, et a.v. Sean Roberts

Case Number: CJ-2022-00122

Judge: Burl Estes

Court: District Court, Osage County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Pawhuska Defamation Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: C. Scott Loftis

Description:

Pawhuska, Oklahoma personal injury lawyer sued on a defamation theory.

¶1 Sean Roberts alleges Mr. Fount Holland used his consulting business, Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals, LLC, in a scheme to destroy his political career. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing Roberts’ counterclaim for damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.

¶2 Holland filed a petition against Roberts on August 24, 2022, alleging libel and slander, false light invasion of privacy and negligence. Roberts issued a press release that suggested Holland, together with Roberts’ political adversaries, sought to discredit him with allegations relating to his relationship with his former wife.1 Roberts filed an answer with a counterclaim alleging racketeering activities including extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Holland moved to dismiss, and at the conclusion of a hearing the court gave Roberts an opportunity to amend his counterclaim to plead the requirements of RICO with particularity.2 In his amended counterclaim, Roberts alleges Holland engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity that caused him to lose his election for Oklahoma Labor Commissioner, thereby injuring his business and property and entitling him to treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Holland again moved to dismiss the RICO claim pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) and the court granted the relief. Roberts appealed.3

[1–5] ¶3 A motion to dismiss tests the law of the claims, not the facts supporting them. Gens v. Casady School, 2008 OK 5, ¶8, 177 P.3d 565, 569. Motions to dismiss are disfavored and the court considers all allegations as true. Id. A dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is appropriate only if it is clear beyond a doubt that no factual situation exists entitling the claimant to relief. Brown v. Founders Bank & Tr. Co., 1994 OK 130, ¶17, 890 P.2d 855, 864—65(applying the Oklahoma Pleading Code to a claim for relief under the federal Bank Tying Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1972). On the other hand, dismissal is appropriate when there are insufficient facts under a cognizable theory. Gens, ¶8. Appellate courts review motions to dismiss de novo. Id.

[6–11] ¶4 The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) makes it a crime to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.4 Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 183, 117 S.Ct. 1984 1987, 138 L.Ed.2d 373 (1997). One section of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), allows private parties to bring civil suits for
treble damages, Deck v. Engineered Laminates, 349 F.3d 1258, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2003).5 A plaintiff must assert the defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962, by setting out four elements: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. BancOklahoma Mortgage Corp. v. Capital Title Co. Inc., 194 F.3d 1089, 1100 (10th Cir. 1999). "Racketeering activity" is defined in terms of activity that violates other laws, including more than 50 specifically mentioned federal statutes. Klehr, 521 U.S. at 183, 117 S.Ct. 1984, A "pattern" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, commonly referred to as predicate acts, not more than 10 years apart. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Stone, 998 F.2d 1534, 1543 (10th Cir.1993); Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1261 (10th Cir. 2006).

Holland v. Roberts, 544 P.3d 335 (Okla. Civ. App. 2024)

Outcome: Motion to dismiss counterclaim granted.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: