Those allegations, which must of course be accepted as true for
purposes of testing the sufficiency of U.S. Markets' statement of a RICO
claim, set out a "closed-ended" set of
actions. In that respect H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel.
Co., 492 U.S. 229
, 240 (1989)(emphasis in original) holds that
whether the claimed "pattern of racketeering activity" is closed-ended or
open-ended (see id. at 241):
To establish a RICO pattern it must also be shown
that the predicates themselves amount to, or that
they otherwise constitute a threat of,
continuing racketeering activity.
On that score, the relevant caselaw from our Court of Appeals teaches
consistently that a set of facts such as that presented here the
issuance of ten checks over a period of a bit less than eight months to
implement one fraudulent scheme does not provide the
requisite continuity to constitute the "pattern" that might suffice to
state a RICO claim see, e.g., such cases as Midwest Grinding
Co. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016
, 1024 (7th Cir. 1992); Uni*Quality,
Inc. v. Infotronx, Inc., 974 F.2d 918
, 922 (7th Cir. 1992);
Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771
780-81 (7th Cir. 1994); Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. of
Peoria, 142 F.3d 1041
, 1048-49 (7th Cir. 1998); and Pizzo v.
Bekin Van Lines Co., 258 F.3d 629
, 632-33 (7th Cir. 2001)). And it
should be emphasized that both Vicom and Pizzo upheld
the dismissal of such RICO claims on the pleadings.