D&T Partners, L.L.C., Successor in Interest to ACET Venture Partners, Directly and Derivatively on Behalf of ACET Global, L.L.C., et al. v. Baymark Partners Management, L.L.C., et al.

In order to maintain a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim, a plaintiff must plead a “pattern” of racketeering activity that consists of two or more predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Decades ago, this Court held that a plaintiff may demonstrate a pattern by establishing “a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time.” H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 242 (1989). In doing so, it expressly rejected a multiple-“schemes” test. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit found that the alleged acts satisfied the relatedness test,1 and held that the racketeering conduct occurred over a “substantial” period of time. 2 Nonetheless, it superimposed additional, extra-statutory hurdles that this Court has never required, and found that the alleged conduct did not constitute a “pattern” “because the unlawful actions all related to a single scheme. . . .” 3 Must a plaintiff or prosecutor plead multiple schemes (or some other fact) in addition to “a series of related acts that occur over a substantial period of time” in order to sufficiently plead a RICO “pattern?”

1. Appendix, 9a.

2. Appendix, 11a.

3. Appendix, 15a.