X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 19 / 38

128 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

19 / 38

(emphasis in original). In other words, to survive the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs here must

factually allege that Defendant Commonwealth Land itself is the “person” who participated in and

perpetuated a separate and distinct fraudulent enterprise.

Plaintiffs claim that the enterprise here consists of a combination of Commonwealth Land

and the title/settlement agents and that each “member of the Enterprise performs a role in the group

consistent with its organizational structure which furthers the activities of the Enterprise to market

and sell title insurance.” (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶59.)7 Plaintiffs allege that Commonwealth Land acted

through a network of title agents with whom Defendant contracted. (Id. at ¶60.) These title agents

are independent and distinct entities and individuals. In the TIRBOP Manual, “agent” is described

as “a person, firm, association, corporation, partnership, cooperative or joint stock company

expressly authorized by written contract with an Insurer to solicit risks, collect fees, and prepare

Commitments and/or title insurance policies on its behalf and certified by the Insurance Department

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” § 1.3. The title agents are not employees of Defendant,

but rather they are non-exclusive agents who work with different title insurance companies.

Although title agents have an agency agreement with Commonwealth Land, they are still separate,

independent entities who do not function as subsidiaries or employees of Commonwealth Land.

7 If Plaintiffs’ claim was that the enterprise consisted of a defendant corporation in association with its own employees or representatives, Defendant would be correct that the RICO count would fail for lack of distinctiveness. See R.R. Brittingham, 943 F.2d at 301 (finding that the distinctiveness requirement would be eviscerated if plaintiffs were allowed to plead an enterprise consisting of a corporation and its own employees or agents acting on its behalf). The enterprise here consisting of the combination of the title insurance company and the independent title agents is factually different from the enterprise described in Brittingham.

19

Document info
Document views128
Page views128
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 20:11:32 UTC 2017
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments