United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
WILKINSON MAG. JUDGE
ORDER AND REASONS
D. ENGELHARDT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and (c) that was filed by
Defendants, Cesar R. Burgos, The Burgos Law Corporation,
APLC, George McGregor, and Robert Daigre
(“Defendants” or “the Burgos
Defendants”). (Rec. Doc. 104). With their motion,
Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of Count I,
Plaintiffs' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), asserting that
Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred and fail as a matter
of law under 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq.; Defendants
further request that the Court decline to exercise pendant
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. (Rec. Doc.
104-1 at p. 1). The motion is opposed by the Plaintiffs,
Robert Evans, III and the Evans Law Corporation, APLC
(“Plaintiffs”). (Rec. Doc. 113). Defendants filed
a reply in support of the motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 117),
which was followed by Plaintiffs' sur-reply in opposition
of dismissal (Rec. Doc. 120).
carefully considered the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Fourth
Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 104) is GRANTED
for the reasons stated herein.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File Revised RICO Statement (Rec. Doc. 108) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
7, 2016, the Plaintiffs, Robert B. Evans, III (“Mr.
Evans”) and the Evans Law Corporation, APLC, commenced
this action against the Defendants, Cesar Burgos, Burgos
& Associates, The Burgos Law Corporation, APLC, George
McGregor, and Robert Daigre in the 24th Judicial
District Court in Jefferson Parish. (See Rec. Doc.
1-1). On August 3, 2016, Defendants jointly removed this
matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana based on Plaintiffs' allegations
that Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §
1961, et seq. (Rec. Doc. 1).
Count I of the Fourth Amended Complaint,  filed on May 24,
2017, Plaintiffs allege that Burgos, McGregor, and
Daigre-RICO persons pursuant to § 1961(3)-conspired to
violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by agreeing to the
commission of a pattern of racketeering activity through the
law firms of Burgos & Evans and Burgos & Associates
(RICO enterprises), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
(Rec. Doc. 90 at p. 9). Plaintiffs contend that
Defendants' schemes involved racketeering acts occurring
over more than a three-year period, forming a pattern of
racketeering, and resulted in the loss of millions of dollars
in income. (Id.).
allege that Defendants violated RICO by conspiring to
eliminate Mr. Evans from the Burgos & Evans law firm
based on the following predicate acts:
1) Conspiracy to Murder Evans in 2012: In 2012,
Burgos formed a scheme to cause Evans' death by heavy
doses/combination of hormonal drugs [daily growth hormone
injections, namely Sermorelin, and weekly testosterone
injections] he knew would likely cause him to have a heart
attack….Burgos knew Evans had an aorta valve defect.
He was hoping the drugs would cause Evans to have a fatal
heart attack, which nearly happened.
2) Scheme to Deprive Evans of His share of the Dixie
Brewing Settlement and Oust him form the Firm Begins in 2013
and Culminates in 2015: Burgos & Evans had been
engaged in the Dixie Brewing case since 2010. By 2013,
settlement discussions were underway, and with the attempt to
kill him having failed, Burgos began his next scheme to oust
Evans from the firm and deprive him of his share of the
settlement. This entailed ongoing uses of the federal mail
and wires to spread damaging misinformation about Evans to
lay the foundation for his removal from the firm for mental
unfitness and alleged drug addiction….
3) Scheme to Violate the Settlement Agreement:
Burgos and Evans sued each other in Louisiana state
court...on or about July 8, 2015, Burgos and Evans
purportedly reached a settlement...Burgos has refused to send
the first letter [to clients] directed by the judge and the
second letter required by the settlement agreement. And he
continued to send more emails and letters to [over 500]
clients making the same false statements about Evans in
violation of the mail and wire fraud statute…Burgos
has not complied with a single obligation of his under the
Settlement Agreement [including payment of remaining $900,
000 owed to Evans as provided in the Settlement Agreement].
4) Scheme to Cover Up Burgos' Malpractice and Blame
Evans: In approximately 2013 or 2014, Evans was hired to
represent Mary Washington in a Medical Malpractice
case...Burgos asked McGregor to assist Evans in said
case...McGregor was assigned the task of drafting an
opposition brief challenging the defendants' writ
application...Burgos and McGregor failed to file any
opposition brief...resulting in the dismissal of that
defendant. Rather than tell the client the truth, they caused
a letter to be sent to Mary Washington, in Texas, alleging
that the failure to file a writ opposition was Evans'
fault...This action violation of the mail fraud statute in
that it was sent in furtherance of the scheme to harm Evans.
(Rec. Doc. 90 at p. 3-8). Plaintiffs allege that these four
schemes “are related in that they were undertaken by
Burgos and his later joining co-conspirators [McGregor and
Daigre] in order to eliminate Evans from the law firm, take
his clients, and deprive him of his 50% shares of revenues