The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 772.103. But it "is informed by case law interpreting the federal RICO statute." Jones v. . . .
. . . against the Tribe, alleging one count of civil remedies for criminal practices pursuant to section 772.103 . . . and Tein in a subsequent, related case for malicious prosecution and civil liability under section 772.103 . . .
. . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3)-(4); (2) fraud; (3) civil conspiracy; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) aiding and . . .
. . . . § 772.103(1)—(4). . . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Stat. § 772.103, and (2) an injury as a result of this violation. See Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1). . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3)). . . .
. . . . § 772.103. . . . Stat. § § 772.103-104. . . . Stat. § 772.103. . . .
. . . . § 1962(d) (Counts 2 and 5); and (3) Florida RICO violations pursuant to Florida Statutes §§ 772.103 . . .
. . . . § 772.103, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . . § 772.103. . . .
. . . . § 1962(d) against Ferguson and LT (count two), Florida Statutes §§ 772.103-104 (“Florida RICO”) against . . . AKA (count four), U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Ferguson, LT and AKA (count five)- and Florida Statutes §§ 772.103 . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3). . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3) and Fla. Stat. § 772.103(4) of the Florida RICO statutes. . . . Stat. §§ 772.103(3) and 772.103(4) of the Florida RICO statutes. . . . Stat. § 772.103(3) the plaintiff must allege (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern . . . Stat. § 772.103(4) the plaintiff must allege 1) that a defendant agreed to the overall objective of the . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3) (civil RICO); Lance v. . . .
. . . . § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV). Defendants have now filed motions to dismiss. II. DISCUSSION A. . . . Stat. § 772.103(2)-(4) against Defendants Pier-son, Mantesta, Guess, Fantigrassi, and Jenne. . . . Stat. § 772.103 (Counts XIII-XV) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; e. . . . Stat. § 772.103(2) is against Defendants Pierson, Mantesta, Guess, and Fantigrassi only. . . . . Stat. § 772.103(2)-(4). . . .
. . . Section 772.103, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any person “[t]hrough a pattern of criminal . . . indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity,” or to conspire to do so. § 772.103 . . . Section 772.104(1) provides civil remedies for violations of section 772.103. . . . To maintain an action under section 772.103, a plaintiff must plead the necessary predicate acts or continuity . . .
. . . . § 772.102, 772.103. . . .
. . . Section 772.103. . . .
. . . . §§ 772.103, 772.104. . . . treble damages upon a showing that they were injured by virtue of Defendants’ violation of section 772.103 . . . Stat. § 772.103. . . . The undersigned notes at the outset that section 772.103 is dubbed the “Florida RICO Act” because it . . . Stat. §§ 772.103(1) and (2). . . .
. . . As a second cause of action, Bortell alleges violations of sections 772.104(1), 772.103(3), and 772.102 . . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .
. . . . §§ 771.11, 772.103, 772.194, 812.014 and 812.081; (6) Common Law Trademark Disparagement; (7) Attempted . . .
. . . . § 772.103(1) [Count V], § 772.103(2) [Count VI], § 772.103(3) [Count VII], § 772.103(4) [Count VIII . . . Florida Statute § 772.103 is the Florida law that prohibits racketeering activity and is often referred . . .
. . . . § 772.103, the Florida RICO statute. . . .
. . . . § 772.103; the Colorado RICO statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-17-104; Colorado and Florida securities laws . . . Stat. § 772.103, states that it is unlawful for a person (1) to use or invest proceeds received through . . . Stat. § 772.103. . . . Because § 772.103 is patterned after the federal RICO statute, the Florida courts have looked to decisions . . . interpreting the federal statute in interpreting § 772.103. . . .
. . . a complaint against Ginsberg and MLG alleging conversion, civil theft, RICO violations and Chapter 772.103 . . .
. . . . §§ 772.103(3) and 772.104 (Count III); conspiracy to violate Fla. . . . . § 772.103(4) (Count IV); violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count V . . .
. . . . § 1962(c) and § 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, by conducting and participating in the conduct of four . . . In Counts II and V, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) and § 772.103 . . . Finally, in Counts III and VI, Lockheed Martin alleges that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and § 772.103 . . . (4), Florida Statutes, by conspiring to violate §§ 1962(a) and 1962(c) and §§ 772.103(1) and 772.103( . . . Martin has already succeeded in alleging an enterprise against him in its claims under § 1962(c) and § 772.103 . . .
. . . Plaintiff-Growers allege that DuPont engaged in criminal activity actionable pursuant to Florida Statutes § 772.103 . . . Plaintiff-Growers’ proposed Count II alleges that DuPont violated § 772.103(4), which prohibits any person . . . from conspiring to violate § 772.103(3). . . . Stat. § 772.103(3). . . .
. . . Ch. 772.103(2), (3), and (4) (Counts II through VII); and conspiracy to defraud (Count IX). . . . Stat. § 772.103(2)-(4). . . . Stat. § 772.103(4). . . . Stat. § 772.103(4). This they have failed to do. . . . Stat. § 772.103(2) — (4). . . .
. . . The nurseries sought to recover under section 772.103(3) of the Florida Statutes which makes it “unlawful . . . be deemed "clear and convincing evidence” of "injury by reason of violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Section 895.03(3) is the counterpart to section 772.103(3), which provides for civil remedies for criminal . . .
. . . Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) & Section 772.103(A), Fla. Stat. . . . Ers-kine and Branch’s motions to dismiss the section 772.103(3) claims against them are denied. D. . . . Section 772.103(b), Flo,- Stat. . . . Erskine and Branch add the argument that the conspiracy claim brought under section 772.103(4) of the . . . Florida Statutes is dependent on the section 772.103(3) Florida RICO Act claim so that the former should . . .
. . . Section 772.103, Florida Statutes (2002), requires active participation in an enterprise, a much closer . . .
. . . . § 772.103. . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3); Jackson v. . . .
. . . Stat. ch. 772.103(2), (3) and (4) (Counts V through VII); and conspiracy to defraud (Count IX). . . . Stat. ch. 772.103(2)-(4), which is often referred to as the Florida RICO Act. . . . Section 1962(d) of the federal law and the analogous chapter 772.103(4) of Florida law are violated by . . .
. . . . § 772.103(4) (the Florida RICO equivalent), and the other for professional negligence. . . .
. . . . § 1962(d); (III) Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3); . . . (IV) Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4) (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Gre-co . . .
. . . sought money damages in a civil action under the specific authority of sections 772.102(1)(a)(12), 772.103 . . .
. . . . § 1962(d); (III) Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3); . . . (TV) Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4); (V) Breach of Fiduciary Duty by . . . Count HI: Pattern of Criminal Activity pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(3) Count IV: . . . Conspiracy pursuant to Florida Statutes Title 45, § 772.103(4) The Florida RICO statute is patterned . . .
. . . convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Chapter 772.103 makes it unlawful for any person: (1)Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds . . . Stat. ch. 772.103 (1997) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . another to violate the laws, and that they conspired or endeavored to violate the provisions of Ch 772.103 . . .
. . . convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of [Section] 772.103 . . . alleges that Miller violated two (2) of the four (4) provisions listed in the referenced statute, Section 772.103 . . .
. . . . § 772.103(3). . . . language to indicate the level of involvement necessary for RICO liability. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), F.S.A. § 772.103 . . .
. . . See. 772.103(3) and (4), Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act; (d) Section 43 of the Lanham Act, . . .
. . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .
. . . In violation of section 772.103(1), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have with criminal intent received . . . In violation of section 772.103(2), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have through a pattern of criminal . . . In violation of section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, RIVERS has associated with B.N. and the AUCTION . . . In violation of section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, RIVERS and MORAN have conspired and endeavored . . . to violate sections 772.103(1), (2), and (3), Florida Statutes (R. 208-09). . . .
. . . Ginsberg and MLG Properties, Inc. and Count V alleged a Violation of Section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes . . . Section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes, Florida’s RICO statute, applies only where there has been some . . . In Count V Lennar alleges a violation of section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes. . . . Section 772.103, Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part as follows: Prohibited Activities. . . . Section 772.103 Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part as follows: Prohibited Activities. . . .
. . . . § 772.102(4) and § 772.103. . . . who proves by clear and convincing evidence that his injury was caused as a result of violations of § 772.103 . . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . Under § 772.103(3), it is “unlawful for any person: ... . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.103(3) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . . §§ 772.103, and 772.104, the Florida civil Rico Statute, rendering the Debtor liable for treble damages . . . Fla.Stat. § 772.103 states: Fla.Stat. § 772.103 Prohibited activities. . . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . . sum, this Court is satisfied that the claimants equally failed to establish a viable claim under § 772.103 . . .
. . . . § 772.103(1). . . . . § 772.103(1) for failure to adequately plead injury. . . . Adequacy of Pleading Injury Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(2). . . . Adequacy of Pleading Pattern Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and Fla.Stat. § 772.103(3). . . .
. . . the whistle” on his employer’s improper use of toxic substances, as well as a theory under section 772.103 . . . The trial court dismissed the section 772.103 claims with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action . . . Evans argues that the order dismissing the section 772.103 claims was a partial final judgment immediately . . . First, the dismissal of the section 772.103 claims was not a partial final judgment and was not then . . . We do not know whether the trial judge will allow the section 772.103 claims to be renewed or added again . . .
. . . Section 772.103(3), Florida Statutes Defendants support their position that Counts IX and XII be dismissed . . .
. . . See §§ 772.103, 772.104, Fla.Stat.; A.S.J. Drugs, Inc. v. . . .
. . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 . . .
. . . and convincing evidence that he has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of § 772.103 . . . the statute, Schenk has alleged that her injuries resulted from the violations of the provisions of §772.103 . . . complaint allege an injury to Schenk, but that injury was indirectly caused by a violation of F.S.A. §772.103 . . . maintains that no cause of action is stated because Schenk is not injured “by reason of’ any violation of § 772.103 . . .
. . . action: 1) sex discrimination; 2) violation of the equal pay act; 3) assault; and 4) violation of § 772.103 . . .
. . . It was specifically sought to be brought under authority of sections 772.102(l)(a)(12), 772.103, 772.104 . . .
. . . . § 772.103; the Florida Securities Law, Fla.Stat. § 517.301; civil theft under Fla.Stat. § 772.11; common . . .
. . . remedy for the victim, inter alia, of a pattern of criminal extortions, see §§ 772.102( l)(a)(22), 772.103 . . .
. . . pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of Florida Statutes, section 895.03 (1985), or section 772.103 . . .