Source: cases/18usc1343/f-supp-3d-374-361-fleetwood-services-v-complete-business.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_374/0361_01/index.html
The Court is satisfied Plaintiffs have alleged "who made a misrepresentation to whom and the general content of that misrepresentation," Lum , 361 F.3d at 224, and that the Amended Complaint suffices to put Defendants on the notice of the "precise misconduct with which they are charged," Seville , 742 F.2d at 791.
(2) the use of the wires (i.e., January, 2017, emails and ACH debits between Defendants and Fleetwood Services furthering the false impression of the enforceability of the unenforceable agreements) to further the scheme
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/374/0361-01 name Fleetwood Servs., LLC v. Complete Bus. Solutions Grp., Inc. cite 374 F. Supp. 3d 361 (2019) court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania date 2019-04-10 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_374/0361_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_374.jsonl sha1=d6e3527ce408aebf970e97c15bcebbc1142fea76 chars=47871 opinion op : majority by Sánchez @0..47871 controlling party p1 : Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. (CBSG) and Prime Time Funding, LLC (PTF) count c1 : civil RICO (Count IV), wire fraud as the predicate racketeering activity law 18usc1343 role applied posture civil RICO action (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) with wire fraud as predicate; defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) / Rule 9(b) motions to dismiss denied as to the wire-fraud predicate result claimant-won element scheme : satisfied [pleaded] party p1 count c1 route _pleading pattern lender misrepresents enforceability of a usurious merchant-cash-advance "factoring" agreement; Rule 9(b) who-to-whom-and-what satisfied rule @26738..26886 [quoted] | "Mail or wire fraud consists of (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) use of the mail or interstate wires to further that scheme, and (3) fraudulent intent." rule @28955..29081 [quoted] | Nevertheless, a plaintiff "must allege who made a misrepresentation to whom and the general content of the misrepresentation." fact @27056..27309 [supports] | At its core, the Amended Complaint alleges the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud by intentionally misrepresenting the enforceability of the Factoring Agreement, when, in fact, the Factoring Agreement was a usurious, and thus unenforceable, loan. fact @27310..27655 [supports] | As evidence, Plaintiffs allege the existence of (but have not actually filed with the Court) two email exchanges between Plaintiffs, PTF, and CBSG, in January 2017, in which Defendants fraudulently (1) claimed the Agreement would help move Fleetwood Services away from cash advances and save money, and (2) the Agreement was legally enforceable. fact @2500..2774 [supports] | Defendants' promises, according to the Amended Complaint, were lies manufactured to conceal the true purpose behind CBSG and PTF's offer, which was to "worsen [ ] Fleetwood Services's cash flow and thereby increase its dependence on further loans exclusively from [ ] CBSG." held @30108..30423 | The Court is satisfied Plaintiffs have alleged "who made a misrepresentation to whom and the general content of that misrepresentation," Lum , 361 F.3d at 224, and that the Amended Complaint suffices to put Defendants on the notice of the "precise misconduct with which they are charged," Seville , 742 F.2d at 791. gloss The only challenge to the predicate was Rule 9(b) particularity; the court held the scheme (luring borrowers into loans falsely presented as enforceable) pleaded with enough particularity. No substantive sub-question of "scheme" was decided, hence route _pleading. ? holding: the alleged falsity (agreement is an unenforceable usurious loan) rests on the court's assumption "without deciding and only for purposes of the instant motions" that the Factoring Agreement was a loan ? other: the court adds that even if wire fraud were not properly alleged the RICO claim would survive on the unchallenged "collection of unlawful debt" theory, so the wire-fraud ruling is one of two independent grounds for denying dismissal of Count IV element wire : satisfied [pleaded] party p1 count c1 route _pleading pattern January 2017 emails and daily ACH debits from borrower's Texas bank accounts fact @27656..28006 [supports] | In further support of its claim, Plaintiffs allege Defendants' use of the interstate wires to electronically debit its bank account "further created the impression" the Factoring Agreement was enforceable, and once Fleetwood Services experienced issues making payments, Defendants used emails and other wire communications to bolster this impression. fact @4686..4940 [supports] | The Factoring Agreement obligated Fleetwood Services to repay the Receipts Purchased Amount in 110 daily installments of $ 5,000.25, which were effectuated by electronic automated clearing house debits from Fleetwood Services's Texas-based bank accounts. held @30662..30881 | (2) the use of the wires (i.e., January, 2017, emails and ACH debits between Defendants and Fleetwood Services furthering the false impression of the enforceability of the unenforceable agreements) to further the scheme gloss Use of the wires held adequately pleaded under Rule 9(b) by the alleged January 2017 email exchanges (alleged, not filed) and the ACH debits. The court's sentence also covers furtherance; no separate furtherance analysis.