The Court of Appeals affirmed, confirming that under its precedent, a single scheme is insufficient to establish a pattern of racketeering activity.ġ. The District Court dismissed the complaint, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on the ground that each of the fraudulent acts alleged was "committed in furtherance of a single scheme to influence MPUC commissioners," rather than multiple illegal schemes.
They raised four separate claims under §§ 1962(a), (b), (c), and (d), based on factual allegations that, between 19, Northwestern Bell made various cash and in-kind payments to MPUC members, and thereby influenced them to approve rates for the company in excess of a fair and reasonable amount. Petitioners, customers of respondent Northwestern Bell, filed a civil action in the District Court against Northwestern Bell and other respondents, including members of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) - which is responsible for determining Northwestern Bell's rates - seeking an injunction and treble damages. A "pattern" requires "at least two acts of racketeering activity" within a 10-year period. "Racketeering activity" means "any act or threat involving" specified state law crimes, any "act" indictable under specified federal statutes, and certain federal "offenses." § 1961(1). §§ 1961-1968, which is Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA), imposes criminal and civil liability upon persons who engage in certain "prohibited activities," each of which is defined to include, as a necessary element, proof of a "pattern of racketeering activity," § 1962. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.