Counts 12 - 16 allege violations of North Carolina's RICO statute, N.C. Count 11 alleges Defendants conspired to violate the federal RICO laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)/Receipt Of Income From Racketeering Activity. § 1962(c)/Pattern Of Racketeering Activity. In Counts 1 - 9, Plaintiff alleges civil violations of RICO pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(Document #155) More recently, the claims against Defendants Appco and James Benedict were dismissed with prejudice. There are only 16 Defendants in the case now because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against Defendants James Crump and BCW Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Foods, on December 12, 2005. Plaintiff's Verified Complaint alleges multiple violations of the federal and North Carolina racketeering statutes as well as state law claims including unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. On September 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint alleging twenty-one (21) different causes of action against twenty (20) individual and corporate Defendants. In Supp., at 49-51.) Plaintiff also sought an equitable accounting of Defendants' profits, disgorgement of Defendants' ill-gotten proceeds, and the imposition of a constructive trust on all funds or property that can be demonstrated to be proceeds or profits made via the alleged scheme. Plaintiff requested that the Court enjoin the Previously Contracted Retailer Defendants from selling, transferring, assigning, distributing, liquidating, encumbering, or in any way disposing of or reducing the value of any assets, including property, cash, accounts receivable, equipment, vehicles, tangible or intangible personal property, goodwill, or any other tangible or intangible assets, without consent of the Court, except for payment of ordinary monthly living and business expenses as the Court deemed reasonable. This Memorandum and Order focuses solely on the question of injunctive relief with respect to the buying and selling of bought-down RJR cigarettes and does not in any way alter the Court's previous oral rulings.ĭefendant DWI explains in its Motion To Dismiss that Plaintiff has not identified the corporate entity correctly and that "DWI Wholesale, LLC" is actually "DWI, LLC." The Court also denied a motion for expedited discovery sought by Plaintiff. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court issued an oral order denying one aspect of Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, namely, Plaintiff's request that the Court freeze assets of the Previously Contracted Retailer Core Defendants. All parties had an opportunity to present evidence and speak on the merits of Plaintiff's motion. With the exception of Defendants DWI, LLC and Hobart Anderson, who moved for dismissal based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, all of the Core Defendants participated in the hearing. All of the Core Defendants were present and represented by counsel. On November 16, 2005, the undersigned presided over an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff identifies the Core Defendants as follows: "Previously Contracted Retailers" - Market Basket, Steve Hunt, APPCO, Jeffrey Benedict, Daniel Blackburn and "4th Tier Wholesalers" - RJ Marketing, Jason Carpenter, J L Distributors, Foster Qualls, Dave's Distributing, Dave Ritchie, DWI Wholesale and Hobie Anderson.
Reynolds (or "RJR") only seeks injunctive relief against certain core members of the alleged conspiracy or "Core Defendants." Reynolds Tobacco Company's Verified Complaint, Motion For Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum In Support. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff R.J.
0 kommentar(er)
