Gervase

I concur in Justice Sparks’s scholarly opinion.

I write separately to urge our Supreme Court to reconsider its holding in Cianci v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 903 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 575 , 710 P.2d 375 ] which voluntarily assumed state court jurisdiction over RICO actions. (Id. at p. 910.)

As this case well illustrates, RICO is a judicial nightmare. The vagueness of RICO’s language has led to vast divisions of authority in the federal courts, and these divisions are dumped upon California courts compelled to adjudicate RICO claims. In performing that adjudication (as this case shows), California courts are forced to apply both federal substantive and procedural law. For all the reasons set forth in Justice Lucas’s dissent in Cianci ( 40 Cal.3d at p. 925 ), California’s overtaxed courts are ill-equipped to deal with RICO. Moreover, the doors of the federal district courts remain open to any California citizens wishing to press RICO claims.

The time to stop our long day’s journey into the RICO nightmare is now. Our Supreme Court should reconsider Cianci and should decline state court jurisdiction over RICO claims.

The petition of real parties in interest for review by the…

Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Michael J. Lawson, Michael D. Early and Bruce C. Judge for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

SPARKS, Acting P.J.

The petitioners are plaintiffs in an action pending in the superior court based generally upon alleged fraud in the sale of securities. [1] After several attempts at pleading the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) cause of action. ( 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.) We issued an alternative writ of mandate in order to determine whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a RICO cause of action in their third amended complaint. We conclude that they have and shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to overrule the demurrer as to that cause of action. [2]

(1) The question raised by a demurrer to the complaint is simply whether it alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action. ( Johnson v. Clark (1936) 7 Cal.2d 529, 536 [ 61 P.2d 767 ]; Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal. App.3d 864, 870-871 [ 141 Cal. Rptr. 200 ].) A demurrer is not concerned with the likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail, nor…

The petitioners are plaintiffs in an action pending in the superior court based generally upon alleged fraud in the sale of securities. 1 After several attempts at pleading the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs’ federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) cause of action. ( 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.) We issued an alternative writ of mandate in order to determine whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a RICO cause of action in their third amended complaint. We conclude that they have and shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to overrule the demurrer as to that cause of action.

Factual and Procedural Background

The question raised by a demurrer to the complaint is simply whether it alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action. (Johnson v. Clark (1936) 7 Cal.2d 529, 536 [ 61 P.2d 767 ]; Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 870-871 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 200 ].) A demurrer is not concerned with the likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail, nor even whether they have evidence to support their allegations. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2…