KAYE v. MILWAUKEE RICO CASE BACK TO U.S. COURT
Special to the readers of milwaukeeworld
By Michael Horne
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided yesterday, Monday, December 17th, 2007, to remand case 06-3139 back to district court to settle a few issues, including whether that court had properly recorded its dismissal of the original complaint. Also at stake: the judge's order granting attorney's fees to the defendants, and a sanction of plaintiff-appellant Joesph Kaye for both the original case and his appeal.
Kaye had sued the City and numerous officials and officers of a neighborhood group alleging bid rigging in the sale of city real estate along the Milwaukee River. His action took the form of a federal RICO suit 05 C 982, heard by Judge J. P. Stadtmueller in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Stadtmueller threw out Kaye's case, sanctioned him and ordered him to bear the cost of attorneys' fees. According to the judge, he had many reasons for doing so: “Kaye has not properly pleaded predicate acts of racketeering or a pattern of racketeering. ... Because each of Kaye’s RICO claims requires that Kaye plead a pattern of racketeering activity, … he fails to state a claim against the City of Milwaukee Defendants. ... Kaye does not specify the many victims, the time frame involved, the five separate schemes, or the distinct injuries. Kaye does not cite to any allegations within his complaint or to any exhibits.”“Even if this court accepts Kaye’s allegations as true, the alleged predicate acts of bribery do not constitute a pattern of racketeering and Kaye’s RICO claims must be dismissed.”
What Stadtmueller failed to do however, was to render his decision "final and appealable," according to the appeals court ruling.
"The defendants contend that since the district court sanctioned Kaye, we can assume that it was washing its hands of a frivolous lawsuit and moving on to other things. ... That may be what happened here, as indicated by the fact that the defendants asked the district court to dismiss with prejudce, but the district court did not explicitly do that (it did not say whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice).
"On remand, the district court should indicate whether it had intended to dispose of the entire case or let Kaye file an amended complaint, and proceed accordingly. It should also set the amount of attorney's fees. Any party aggrieved afterwards can file a fresh appeal. The defendants have moved to sanction Kaye for filing this appeal, but we do not believe the issues raised here are so insubstantial as to warrant that, especially given the possibility of amendment; the motion is DENIED."
[See previous Milwaukeeworld posts for more information on the path of this case over the past two years.--Ed.]
MilwaukeeWorld: APPEALS COURT HEARS KAYE v D'AMATO ARGUMENTS
| The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Seventh District got a chance to hear arguments Friday, November 30th, 2007 in Case 06-3139, Joseph Kaye v. ... www.milwaukeeworld.com/blog/2007/ |
MilwaukeeWorld: KAYE TO PAY IN TOSSED RICO SUIT -- Updated! - 1:28pm
| Joe Kaye filed a lawsuit on his own behalf ("pro se") in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging a violation of federal Racketeer ... www.milwaukeeworld.com/blog/ |
MilwaukeeWorld: CITY MOVES TO DISMISS RICO SUIT
It was brought by Joseph Kaye, an attorney who once owned a property in the East ... It quotes the original complaint of Joseph Kaye in which he says, ...www.milwaukeeworld.com/blog/
posted by Michael Horne @ 12:15 PM
0 comments
links to this post
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home