X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 1 / 38

110 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

1 / 38

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEPHANIE COLEMAN, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs,

v.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant.

: : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 09-679

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

January 14, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Introduction...........................................................................................................................2

  • II.

    Factual Background..............................................................................................................3

    • A.

      The Rate Manual in Pennsylvania.............................................................................4

    • B.

      Coleman Transaction.................................................................................................7

    • C.

      Bowmer Transaction....................................................................................................7

    • D.

      The Scheme to Defraud................................................................................................8

  • III.

    Standard of Review...............................................................................................................9

IV.

Discussion.............................................................................................................................10

A.

§ 910-44(b) of TICA Does Not Bar Plaintiffs From Pursuing a Private Right of

B.

Action Before Exhausting Administrative Remedies.............................................10 Plaintiffs State a Valid RICO Claim........................................................................14

I.

II.

The Association-in-Fact Enterprise and the Distinctiveness Requirements........................................................16

  • a.

    Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege a “Person” Distinct From the “Enterprise”.........................................................17

  • b.

    Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege an Organized “Enterprise” Structure........................................................21

  • c.

    Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege an “Enterprise” Distinct From the Pattern of Racketeering Activity......................................23

Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege Predicate Acts of Mail and Wire Fraud........25

a.

The Scheme to Defraud......................................................................26

i. ii

.

The HUD-1 Statement Furthers the Scheme to Defraud.....27

Defendant Owed Plaintiffs a Dutyto Disclose

.....................

29

Document info
Document views110
Page views110
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 16:35:10 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments