'extending over a substantial period of time'). G.I.C.C. Capital Corp. V. Technology Finance Group, Inc., 67 F.3d 463, 466 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing H.J.Inc., 492 U.S. at 241-42).
The amended complaint read liberally alleges that the predicate acts began in May 1994 and continued through January 1995. Amended Complaint PP 24, 59 ("Compl."). Defendant argues that the relevant period for alleged predicate acts is less than two months, the timeperiod when plaintiff was induced to perform its services until plaintiff no longer performed its services. The fraudulent scheme alleged in the Amended Complaint amounts to a single commercial transaction whereby plaintiff was induced to enter into and perform advertising services worth $ 247,485 for which it was partially paid and was then provided with a promissory note and guarantee for the balance.
The Court notes that aside from alleging what is essentially one breached business transaction, plaintiff's allegations amount to a single scheme with a single victim involving predicate acts that spanned at most eight months. While this Court is mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition to take a flexible approach in examining continuity, see H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 241, this Court is also aware of its responsibility not to apply this requirement so leniently that it is rendered meaningless. Taking such a balanced approach, and considering the Amended Complaint in light of the variety of factors that courts have looked to in determining continuity, the Court finds that the allegations contained therein are insufficient to establish a pattern of racketeering activity.
The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
LEONARD D. WEXLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Hauppauge, New York
February 7, 1997
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.