Grafman has recounted with insufficient detail, and a mailing in late August 1987 from defendant Bonick to American National Bank, which maintained a line of credit for Century. See Second Amended Complaint at paras. 76(a)-(b). The court cannot reasonably infer how the maintenance of a line of credit could result, either directly or ultimately, in a change in a corporation's by-laws or the ouster of its president.
3. August 1987 Loan to Century -- Grafman claims that the defendants deprived him of his loan to Century on account of (a) his inability to verify Century's cash position, (b) Collias's misrepresentations, and (c) Century's loans to Collias. See id. at paras. 43-50. The court cannot infer a link between any of the mailings alleged in id. at para. 76 and the alleged causes of Grafman's loss of his loan. The court cannot infer that the defendants used the mails to prevent Grafman from verifying Century's cash position, communicate Collias's misrepresentations, or facilitate Century's loans to Collias.
4. Breach of Compensation Agreement -- Grafman contends that the defendants breached an agreement to provide equal compensation among himself, Collias, and Karlos for 1988. See id. at paras. 54-55. Grafman alleges only one mailing which is even remotely related to compensation in id. at para. 76(d), where he contends that in or about December of 1989, Karlos mailed Joseph Baisch and defendant Soter "bonus" checks. The court cannot infer that these mailings, coming significantly after the period covered by the compensation agreement, furthered its breach.
On account of Grafman's failure to comply with Rule 9(b) and to demonstrate that he suffered harms, for which he has standing, by reason of violations of §§ 1962(c) and 1962(b), Grafman has not stated claims in Counts 1 and 3 under 18 U.S.C. § 1964.
They are dismissed.
The defendants next attack Count 5, which Grafman brings pursuant to §§ 1962(a) and (d). Section 1962(a) states in part: "It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived . . . from a pattern of racketeering activity . . . to use or invest . . . any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in . . . any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate . . . commerce." Grafman alleges that Collias and Karlos have received income through a pattern of racketeering activity and have invested that income in the San Francisco Century Limited Partnership. See Grafman, 727 F. Supp. at 434 (describing transaction). Grafman never explains, however, how Collias and Karlos's investment resulted in harms to him for which he has standing. As the court explained in id. at 434-35, the defendants' appropriation of Century's assets and their placing those assets in the San Francisco Century Limited Partnership affected all of Century's shareholders, not only Grafman. Grafman may not maintain this claim on his own. The court will dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6).
Since the court has disposed of Grafman's individual claims in Counts 1, 3, and 5, the court will dismiss of his individual state law claim as well, for the same reasons given in Grafman, 727 F. Supp. at 436.
The court dismisses Counts 1 and 3 of Grafman's Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and for failure to comply with Rule 9(b). The court dismisses Count 5 under Rule 12(b)(6), and dismisses Count 7 under Rule 12(h)(3). The court denies the defendants' motions to dismiss Grafman's remaining claims. The court will take the defendants' motion for a stay of proceedings under advisement, pending argument at the next status hearing in this matter.