USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 97-1355

AUGUSTUS JOHN CAMELIO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN FEDERATION, ETC., ET AL.,

Defendants - Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________

Godbold,* Senior Circuit Judge,

____________________

and Barbadoro,** District Judge.

______________

_____________________

Lee H. Kozol, with

_____________

whom Debra Dyleski-Najjar,

____________________

Penny Kozol
___________

and Friedman & Atherton were on brief for appellant.

___________________
Andrew D. Roth, with whom
______________
P.L.L.C.,
________

William J. Hardy,
________________

Devki K. Virk, Bredhoff & Kaiser,

_____________ __________________
Prescott M. Lassman
___________________

Kaplan & Becker were on brief for appellees.

_______________

and Kleinfeld,
__________

____________________

March 5, 1998
____________________

____________________

**

Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.

BARBADORO, District
BARBADORO, District

Judge.
Judge.

Augustus Camelio, a former

_______________

employee and member of a labor

court

against the union and

Camelio alleges

forced

him

1961-1968

union

in

violation of

the

("RICO"), 18

job and

Racketeer

U.S.C.A.

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and several provisions of

law.

After

defendants removed the

case to

court, the district court below dismissed Camelio's RICO

claim and several

to

the

him fired from his

Corrupt Organizations Act

Massachusetts state

federal

fourteen members of its leadership.

that defendants had

out of

Influenced and

union, brought this suit in state

of his state law causes of

state a claim.

The

action for failure

court then remanded the remaining claims

to state court.

Camelio appeals the dismissal of his federal and

state

We affirm

claims.

properly dismissed

in

part, concluding

his RICO claim.

We disagree,

that the

court

however, with

the district court's decision to

action.

Rather than

have remanded

them to

dismiss the state law causes of

dismissing these claims,

state court along

the court should

with the

rest of

the

state law claims.

I.
I.

Augustus

General

Counsel

BACKGROUND1
BACKGROUND1
__________

Camelio served

to Council

93

for

of the

State, County and Municipal Employees

United

States Department

of

nearly thirty

Labor

American

("AFSCME").

and

the

years

as

Federation of

In 1995,

Internal

the

Revenue

____________________

As this appeal

claim,

we treat as true the complaint's well-pleaded allegations

and construe those

Miranda
_______

arises from a dismissal for failure to state a

allegations in Camelio's

v. Ponce Fed. Bank,

________________

948 F.2d

favor.

41, 43 (1st

Nodine v. Textron, Inc., 819 F.2d 347 (1st Cir. 1987).

See,
___

e.g.,
____

Cir. 1991);

______

_____________

-2-

Service

affairs

initiated

that

misappropriate

leadership.

investigations

threatened

union funds

to

into Council

expose

by several

an

93's

ongoing

members

financial

scheme

of the

to

union's

In response, Camelio alleges, defendants engaged in

a concerted effort to thwart the two federal investigations.

Camelio

launched

his own

investigation

into Council

93's financial affairs

He

claims that

after learning of the

the individual

federal inquiries.

defendants, all

members of

the

union leadership, initially rebuffed his requests for information

and later had him fired when he persisted with his investigation.

Camelio continued to investigate even after he lost his job, this

time relying

on his

union's books and

vice

president

attempt

as a

records.

of

position that would

an

right

union

member to

He also announced

AFSCME's

northern

New

allow him to further his

to thwart

Camelio's

uncovering any evidence of

candidacy

inspect

the

his candidacy for

England

region,

investigation.

and

keep him

In

from

defendants' criminal scheme, however,

several of the individual defendants first threatened Camelio and

ultimately forced

him out of

the union when their

threats were

not heeded.

Camelio sued Council

in

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

tortious

state

law for

court.

breach of

interference with

constitution, intentional

distress, defamation,

93 and the

He

individual defendants

alleged claims

contract, wrongful

contract,

violations

and negligent infliction

and false light

-3-

based

on

discharge,

of the

state

of emotional

invasion of privacy.

He

also

alleged that the individual defendants violated the federal

RICO statute.

See 18 U.S.C.A.
___

Relying on

the case to

28 U.S.C.A.

1962(c), 1964(c).

Camelio's RICO

allegations,

1441(a)&(b) (West

amend his

but

1994).

court also

The district court allowed

specifically state

concluded that

a RICO claim against any

dismissed three

See
___

Defendants then moved to

complaint to more

ultimately

sufficiently allege

The

removed

federal court in the District of Massachusetts.

dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Camelio to

claims, defendants

of Camelio's

he

had

his

failed to

of the defendants.

state law

claims

against all defendants (breach of

contract, negligent infliction

of

light invasion of privacy) and

emotional distress, and false

parts

of

two

other

claims

as

to

some

defendants

(state

constitutional violations and intentional infliction of emotional

distress) before remanding the remaining claims to state court.

The district

because it concluded

allege that

predicate

based.

dismissal

II.
II.

DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________

court

dismissed

Camelio's complaint failed to

his injuries

acts of

The court

of

jurisdiction.

the

Camelio's

RICO

claims

sufficiently

were proximately caused by any of

racketeering

gave

only

state

law

on which

the RICO

claims were

cursory explanation

claims

over

which

the

it

for

its

retained

Camelio challenges both rulings.

A.
A.

The RICO Claims

The RICO Claims
_______________

In

addition

to criminal

penalties,

RICO

provides a

private right of action for

treble damages and attorneys fees to

-4-

"[a]ny person

injured in his business or property by reason of a

violation

of section

bases his

RICO claims on

any person

to

interstate

commerce by

1962."

18 U.S.C.A.

1962(c),

conduct the

of

Camelio

which makes it unlawful for

affairs of

means

1964(c).

an enterprise

"pattern

of

affecting

racketeering

activity."

18 U.S.C.A.

1962(c).

The Act also provides a list

of actions and statutory violations that constitute "racketeering

activity" and states

at least

When

the

two acts of

a plaintiff

1962(c),

plaintiff

F.2d 41,

alleged

racketeering.

attempts

to

such activity requires

18 U.S.C.A.

base a

civil

that claim cannot succeed unless

complains were

specified acts

948

that a "pattern" of

of racketeering.2

46-7 (1991).

predicate

injuries will

caused

not be

a "cause

sufficient.

RICO

claim on

the injuries of which

one

or more

of

the

Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank,

_______
________________

Moreover,

acts were

by

1961(1)&(5).

merely proving

in fact"

Instead,

that the

of plaintiff's

1964(c)

requires

proof that at least one of the defendant's predicate acts was the

proximate

cause

of

the

plaintiff's

injuries.

Holmes
______

v.

Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992).

____________________________________

Camelio

alleges

that

defendants

depriving him of his property interests

membership.

pattern

predicate acts:

him

by

in his job and his union

He asserts that defendants engaged

of RICO

injured

in the following

misappropriation of

funds in

____________________

Although it is not at issue

that

the same causation

claims under

1962(d).

in this case, this court has held

requirement applies to

RICO conspiracy

Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 948 F.2d 41,

_______
_______________

48 & n.9 (1st Cir. 1991).

-5-

violation

of

extortion in

29

U.S.C.A.

violation of the

501(c)

(West

1985);

attempted

Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.A.

1961(1)

(West 1984 & Supp. 1997); and obstruction of justice in violation

of 18 U.S.C.A.

1510 and 1512 (West

his complaint,

Camelio asserts

combinations against

against Council 93.

treat

1984 & Supp. 1997).3

a myriad

of

claims in

fourteen individual defendants

For the sake of clarity of our

In

various

as well

as

analysis, we

all of the defendants together, rather than individually.4

Accordingly,

to

satisfy

RICO's causation

requirement

at

the

motion to dismiss stage, Camelio's complaint must allege that the

injuries of which he complains

were proximately caused by one or

more of

these predicate acts.

We examine the sufficiency of the

complaint's causation allegations by addressing each category

of

predicate acts in turn.

1.

Misappropriation of Funds Claims

________________________________

Camelio

claims that

defendants

misappropriated

U.S.C.A.

501(c)

nine of

union

by taking

the fourteen

funds

such

in

funds for

individual

violation

of

personal use

18

and

causing union money to be paid for legal services that were never

rendered.

racketeering

violation of

act

under

501(c)

RICO.

qualifies

See
___

29

as

U.S.C.A.

predicate

1961(1).

____________________

Camelio

alleges these

violations

in

various combinations

against each of the fourteen

individual defendants.

does

two

he

allege

less

than

violations

In no event

against

any

one

defendant.

For

the

sake

of clarity,

we

treat Camelio's

allegations

against the defendants collectively.

-6-

However, even if we assume

that

defendants

satisfy

RICO's

violated

causation

that Camelio has sufficiently alleged

501(c),

requirement

these

violations

because

the

cannot

connection

between the violations

and Camelio's injuries is

insufficiently

close to say that one proximately caused the other.

See Miranda,
___ _______

948 F.2d at 47 (bribery not cause of plaintiff's job loss); Pujol

_____

v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 829 F.2d 1201, 1205 (mail and

_______________________________

wire fraud not proximate cause

of plaintiff's job loss); Nodine,

______

819 F.2d at 349 (mail and wire fraud not cause of plaintiff's job

loss).

In

other words, even if defendants did

by stealing

union funds,

removed from Camelio's

violate

their misappropriations

loss of his job and

501(c)

were too

far

his union membership

to serve as the proximate cause of his injuries.

2.

Extortion Claims
________________

Camelio continued his investigation

job,

relying

on his

right

as a

after he lost

union member

to

his

inspect the

union's

1985).

financial

records.

See
___

29 U.S.C.A.

431(c)

(West

He also announced his candidacy for vice president of the

union's northern New England region.

Camelio claims that several

of the defendants attempted to stifle his investigation and force

him to abandon his candidacy by threatening to deprive him of his

membership in the

such conduct

crime which

U.S.C.A.

union if he did

violates the

qualifies as

not desist.

Hobbs Act, 18

a predicate

1961(1).

-7-

He

asserts that

U.S.C.A.

1951(a), a

act under

RICO.

See 18
___

Like Camelio's

claims cannot

misappropriation claims, his

satisfy RICO's

causation requirement

Hobbs Act

because the

Hobbs Act violations he alleges did not cause the loss

his

job or

person

membership.

who "obstructs,

robbery or

U.S.C.A.

his union

delays

extortion or

1951(a).

obtaining of property

or

The Hobbs Act

The

Act

punishes any

affects commerce

attempts or conspires

defines

to do

"extortion"

from another, with his

____ ___

of either

. .

so."

as

by

18

"the

consent induced by
_______

wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or

under

color

of

official

(emphasis added).

right."

18

U.S.C.A.

If Camelio's complaint successfully pleads any

Hobbs Act violations, those violations resulted

attempts to

1951(b)(2)

induce Camelio

to abandon

from defendants'

certain property

rights

attendant to his union membership (e.g., his right to inspect the

union's financial records

and his right

As Camelio

these attempts did

could

alleges

concedes that

to seek union

not succeed,

not have

caused

his injuries.

Instead, the

that

Camelio's

injuries

actually

were

office).

they

complaint

caused

by

defendants' unilateral acts which, although reprehensible, do not

violate the Hobbs Act.5

____________________

Camelio

alleges

combination: denied

him

that

defendants,

the right

acting

to attend

in

various

a union

hearing;

changed the means of collecting union dues

in

arrears and

thereby deprive

him of

so as to put his dues

his

status as

a union

member; rebuffed his subsequent efforts to pay his dues; declared

him ineligible

to seek office

name

ballot; and

from the

hearing on

the issue of

within the union and

denied his

removed his

repeated requests

his membership.

Such

for a

unilateral acts,

though possibly unlawful on some other grounds, do not fall under

the express

terms of

the Hobbs Act,

which prohibits

obtaining of property from another, with his

____ ___

-8-

3.

Obstruction of Justice Claims

_____________________________

only "the

consent, induced by
_______

Camelio's final argument is

under

RICO because

conduct

in

they engaged

violation

U.S.C.A.

1510

and

of

two

1512.

that defendants are liable

in a

federal

campaign

of obstructive

criminal

Violations

of

statutes,

these

statutes

constitute predicate acts of "racketeering activity" under

See 18
___

U.S.C.A.

alleged that

Further,

Camelio has

RICO.

sufficiently

defendants' obstructive conduct caused his injuries

to satisfy RICO's

attempt to

1961(1).

18

proximate cause requirement.

salvage his RICO

Camelio's final

claims fails, however,

because the

conduct of which he complains does not violate either obstruction

statute.

The two statutes on which Camelio relies are similar in

focus and

effect.

Section

1510(a) makes

it a

crime for

any

person to "willfully endeavor[] by means

delay,

or prevent the communication of information relating to a

violation

of

investigator."

punishes

and

of bribery to obstruct,

any

criminal

statute

18 U.S.C.A.

any person who

1510(a).

to

Similarly,

"intentionally harasses

thereby hinders, delays,

criminal

1512(a)(2)

another person

prevents, or dissuades

any person

____________________

wrongful use of actual or

18 U.S.C.
States,
______
defendant

threatened force, violence, or

1951(b)(2) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. United

________ _____
______
504
is

U.S.

255, 265

a private

(1992)

actor

--

(reasoning
and

extorting under color of official right

must be
violence

fear."

induced by wrongful
or

fear.")

omitted); United States

_____________

not a

added)

where the

public

official

-- "the victim's consent

_______

use of actual or

(emphasis

that

threatened force,

(internal

v. Bucci, 839 F.2d 825,

_____

quotations

827 (1st Cir.),

cert. denied, 488 U.S. 844 (1988); United States v. Hathaway, 534
_____ ______
_____________
________
F.2d 386, 393 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819 (1976).
_____ ______

-9-

from

. .

. reporting

commission

1512(c)(2).

criminal

Both

of

to a

statutes

law enforcement

Federal

focus

investigatory process,

offense."

on a

namely

officer . .

18

specific

U.S.C.A.

step in

the "communication"

"reporting" of information to criminal investigators.

United States v. Siegel, 717 F.2d 9,

_____________
______

. the

the

or

See, e.g.,
___ ____

20 (2d Cir. 1983) (in order

to convict under

1510(a), prosecution must prove that defendant

had a reasonably founded belief that information had or was about

to

be given

to a

federal investigator);

Martin, 515
______

F.2d 317, 320-21

prove

"[defendant]

that

United States
_____________

(5th Cir. 1975)

knew

or

reasonably

v. San
___

(prosecution must

believed

that

[informant] had information which she had given or would give" to

federal investigators).

The conduct

outside

the

scope

on which

of both

defendants engaged in

Camelio bases

statutes

because

his claims

falls

he alleges

their obstructive conduct in an

that

effort to

prevent him from uncovering information of wrongdoing rather than

to

prevent

uncovered.

him

from

reporting

Conduct that is

information

he

had

aimed only at preventing

already

a private

citizen from

uncovering evidence

of a

crime, while

undeniably

wrong, is not within the purview of either obstruction of justice

statute.

Accordingly, Camelio

cannot save

his RICO

claims by

relying on either statute.

This is

been

called upon

the fourth time

to evaluate

in recent years that

the sufficiency

arising from an employment dispute.

-10-

of a

we have

RICO claim

In all four cases, the claim

has failed to survive a

motion to dismiss.

See,
___

e.g., Miranda,
____ _______

948 F.2d at 47; Pujol, 829 F.2d at 1205; Nodine, 819 F.2d at 349.
_____
______

Although

we are

categorical

Miranda:
_______

wrongful

not prepared today

fashion,

"While it

we

emphasize

to address

the

the issue

court's

may be theoretically

statement

possible to

in a

in

allege a

discharge which results directly from the commission of

a RICO predicate act . . . any such safe harbor would be severely

circumscribed."

for

this

948 F.2d

category of

at 41.

claims,

Whatever

Camelio's RICO

outside any safe harbor that may exist.

B.
B.

the future may hold

The State Law Claims

The State Law Claims
____________________

claims

are well

After properly

dismissing Camelio's

RICO claims,

the

district court proceeded to dismiss three of his state law claims

against

all of

infliction of

the defendants

(breach

emotional distress,

of contract,

and false

privacy) and parts

of two other claims as

defendants

constitutional

(state

infliction of emotional

distress).

light invasion

and

dismissal of

merits

to state court.

the state law

of these

retaining

claims, we

Camelio

claims.

conclude

supplemental jurisdiction

after it dismissed the

intentional

court then declined

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining

remanded them

of

to several individual

violations

The

negligent

claims and

challenges the

Rather than

that the

over the

federal claims on which

to

court's

addressing the

court erred

state law

in

claims

jurisdiction was

based.

-11-

A federal

court exercising original

jurisdiction over

federal claims also has "supplemental jurisdiction over all other

claims that are

so related to

such original jurisdiction

the claims in

the action

that they form part of

within

the same case

or

controversy

under

Constitution."

the

Article

28 U.S.C.A.

court dismisses

III

bear on the

F.3d 249,

the foundational

United

federal

If, however,

claims, it

must

engaging in a pragmatic and

issue.

Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81

_____
_______________________________

relevant to

1996).

Among the

this calculation

factors that will

are the interests

fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

is

States

evaluation of a variety of considerations that may

256-57 (1st Cir.

often prove

the

1367(a) (West 1993).

reassess its jurisdiction, this time

case-specific

of

a particularly

important concern

in

Id.
___

these cases.

of

Comity

As

the

Supreme Court observed in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.

____________________
_____

715, 726 (1966),

Needless

decisions of

avoided both

as a

state

law should

be

matter of

comity and

to

promote

justice

parties,

by

procuring for them a surer-footed reading

of

applicable
claims

are

law.

between

Certainly, if

dismissed

though not unsubstantial

sense, the

the

before

the federal
trial,

even

in a jurisdictional

state claims should

be dismissed

as well.

Accordingly,

weigh strongly

claims

at

the balance

of competing

factors

ordinarily will

in favor of declining jurisdiction over state law

where the foundational federal claims have been dismissed

an early

stage in the

litigation.

See Rodr guez

___ _________

Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995).

______________

-12-

v. Doral
_____

variety of

factors

counsel

jurisdiction over the state law claims

court

dismissed the only federal

circumstances

in

prejudiced by a

which

the

concern

claims.

the

of

First, the

claims well before trial under

parties

would

not

be

unfairly

Second, it does

court's disposition of some but not

of the state law claims will

will take to resolve the

retention

in this case.

remand of the state law claims.

not appear that the district

all

against

materially shorten the time it

parties' dispute as the remanded claims

same nucleus

Third, and perhaps

of

operative fact

as

the dismissed

most importantly in this

case, the

claims

that the court

state law that

dismissed raise substantial

are best

resolved in

questions of

state court.

For all

of

these reasons, we hold that the district court erred in retaining

jurisdiction over the state law claims.

III.
III.

For

district

dismissed

refrained

the

foregoing

CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
__________

reasons,

we

conclude

that

court properly dismissed Camelio's RICO claims.

the federal

from

claims, however,

exercising

the

supplemental

the

Having

court should

jurisdiction

have

over

Camelio's state law claims and remanded them to state court.

The district court's dismissal of Camelio's RICO claims

is

affirmed.
affirmed
________

court's

As

judgment

to

is

the supplemental

vacated with

state

instructions

law claims,

to

the

remand the

vacated
_______

remaining claims to state court.

-13-