Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
GLOBAL SALES, LTD., a Nevada corporation, Silver Bullet,Ltd., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.APPLEGATE DRAYAGE CO., Schenkers International Forwarders,Inc., Michael Applegate, Merritt Wiley.Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 1991.* Decided July 3, 1991.
Before GOODWIN, BEEZER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Bills of Lading Act. The complaint alleged that defendants refused to deliver goods in order to extort money. On November 17, 1989 the district court dismissed the complaint.
A. The RICO causes of action.
The first two counts of the complaint alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act imposes criminal and civil liability upon those who engage in certain "prohibited activities." Each prohibited activity is defined to include proof of a pattern or racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone, 492 U.S. 229, 232 (1989). To establish a RICO pattern it must be shown that "the predicate acts themselves, amount to, or that they otherwise constitute a threat of continuing racketeering activity." Id. at 240 (emphasis in original); see also Medallion Television Ent. v. SelecTV of California, 833 F.2d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1987). In the present case the district court correctly found that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a threat of continued criminal activity. Therefore the district court properly dismissed the RICO claims.
B. Liability under the Bills of Lading Act.
The third and fourth counts of the complaint alleged violations of 49 U.S.C. § 88. The district court found that this statute did not imply a private right of action and dismissed these counts sua sponte. The language of the 49 U.S.C. § 88 itself and the surrounding statutes within the Bills of Lading Act anticipate that an action for its enforcement will be brought in some forum. The courts have construed the Bills of Lading 49 U.S.C. § 81 et seq. as rules of liability and the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 20, revised 49 U.S.C. § 11707, as relating to the enforcement of that liability. See Davis v. Roper Lumber Co., 269 U.S. 158, 162 (1925). Actions brought in federal court for disputes involving bills of lading are properly brought under 49 U.S.C. § 11707. Therefore the district court did not err in dismissing these claims.