Silverstein v. Percudani - MD Pa. - March 22, 2006
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/Munley/04v1262b.pdf
Individual plaintiffs' RICO claims under 18 USC 1962(c) against Pocono real estate developer and financers dismissed for lack of specificity in complaint, as required by Federal Rule 9(b) and case law. Leave to amend was not granted because such leave had been previously granted, "and even with the amendment, Plaintiffs' pleadings are insufficient." Plaintiffs' state consumer protection law claims were also dismissed, because, with no valid federal claim, the parties were not diverse and there was thus had no basis for federal jurisdiction.
