Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Boyle , 63 F. App'x 98 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                         UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL              
    PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION;
    THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK,
    MARYLAND,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    TIMOTHY B. BOYLE; JEFFREY L.
    PAULEY; MOBILE DATA
    TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; INTERNATIONAL               No. 02-1693
    MANAGEMENT CONSULTING,
    INCORPORATED,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    DATALUX CORPORATION; JOHN AND
    JANE DOE AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES OF
    DEFENDANT ENTITIES,
    Defendants.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.
    (CA-01-3561-H)
    Argued: April 4, 2003
    Decided: April 16, 2003
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    2               MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL v. BOYLE
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Adrian Robert Gardner, General Counsel, THE
    MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING
    COMMISSION, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellants. Timothy Fran-
    cis Maloney, JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A., Greenbelt,
    Maryland; Dana Glynn Theriot, CARR, MORRIS & GRAEFF, P.C.,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: William C. Dickerson,
    Associate General Counsel, THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPI-
    TAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, Riverdale, Mary-
    land, for Appellants. Cary J. Hansel, JOSEPH, GREENWALD &
    LAAKE, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland; Lawrence E. Carr, III, Stephen
    D. Graeff, CARR, MORRIS & GRAEFF, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the
    City of Takoma Park, Maryland appeal the dismissal of their claims
    brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
    Act, 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968
     (West 2000 & Supp. 2003). The dis-
    trict court dismissed the claims for failure to allege a pattern of racke-
    teering activity as prohibited under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1962
     (West 2000).
    We affirm.
    I.
    Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the
    "Commission") and the City of Takoma Park, Maryland, filed a com-
    plaint in November 2001 alleging that defendants Timothy B. Boyle,
    Jeffrey L. Pauley, Mobile Data Technologies, LLC ("MDT"), Datalux
    MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL v. BOYLE                      3
    Corporation ("Datalux"), and International Management Consulting,
    Inc. ("IMCI"), violated state and federal law in connection with a
    project to place laptop computers in police vehicles (the "project").
    Boyle and Pauley were both previously employed with the Commis-
    sion and played a leading role in the alleged scheme.
    The Commission is a bi-county government agency created by the
    Maryland General Assembly. The Commission functions as a public
    body corporate and can sue and be sued in this capacity. It also has
    legal authority to enter into contracts. In keeping with its responsibili-
    ties, the Commission established the County Division of the
    Maryland-National Capitol Park Police (the "Department") to prevent
    crime; apprehend criminals; and enforce the criminal laws, motor
    vehicle laws, and park regulations in and around the Commission’s
    property in Montgomery county, Maryland.
    In 1995, Department Commander Donald A. Deering, who was
    Boyle’s and Pauley’s superior at the time, authorized pursuit of a
    United States Department of Justice grant to fund the placement of
    laptop computers in police vehicles. After successfully obtaining the
    federal grant, the Department put out a request for bids for "turnkey"
    projects. In April 1997, the Department awarded IMCI a contract
    worth $748,829.94 for design and implementation of an "Enterprise
    Digital Network for a Computer Aided Dispatch System." The con-
    tract stated that payment of the contract price would be made in
    stages, with the final twenty percent due at completion of the project.
    Failure to complete all work within 220 days after the contract date
    would result in assessment of liquidated damages against IMCI.
    Upon choosing IMCI as the chief contractor for the project, the
    Department also assigned Boyle and Pauley responsibility for manag-
    ing and implementing the project. These responsibilities included the
    procurement of various technology products and the administration of
    project-related contracts.
    In discharging these responsibilities, Boyle authorized final pay-
    ment of $149,765.99 to IMCI in November 1998, even though Boyle
    allegedly knew that IMCI had not completed its work under the con-
    tract and that this payment violated the terms of the contract. The
    complaint alleges that Boyle made the improper payment in order to
    4               MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL v. BOYLE
    further his private business relationship with IMCI. At roughly the
    same time, in early November 1998, Boyle and Pauley also organized
    defendant MDT as a limited liability company, wholly owned by
    Boyle and Pauley, for the purpose of obtaining commissions from
    various vendors supplying technology and computer services to the
    Department and other law enforcement agencies. That same month,
    Boyle and Pauley organized the Mobile Data Users Group (MDUG),
    which was run and promoted by Boyle and Pauley using Commission
    time and resources and which ostensibly operated as a forum for law
    enforcement representatives to share information and ideas on the
    application of new technology in law enforcement. The plaintiffs
    allege that Boyle and Pauley used MDUG to surreptitiously promote
    their own business interests, particularly those associated with MDT
    and its "preferred" vendors, with other police departments and law
    enforcement agencies seeking to develop mobile technology plat-
    forms.
    In January 1999, the Commission issued a request for pricing by
    vendors of mobile equipment to be used for the project. Boyle and
    Pauley allegedly drafted specifications for the requested equipment in
    a manner that mirrored the specifications of equipment supplied by
    defendant Datalux. The plaintiffs also allege that Boyle heavily pro-
    moted Datalux to the Commission and others. In March 1999, the
    Commission acted on these recommendations and ordered fifteen
    Datalux computers. Shortly thereafter, MDT entered into an agree-
    ment with Datalux whereby MDT agreed to serve as a sales represen-
    tative for Datalux. Under the agreement, MDT would receive
    commissions for any equipment sold by Datalux to customers
    recruited by MDT. Takoma Park alleges that MDT received such a
    commission after the city purchased Datalux computers based on rec-
    ommendations from MDT.
    In April 2000, after receiving information advising it of "irregulari-
    ties" relating to the procurement activities undertaken by Boyle and
    Pauley in connection with the project, the Commission initiated an
    investigation of the two police officers. The following month, in May
    2000, Boyle and Pauley resigned.
    The Commission, along with Takoma Park, subsequently filed the
    underlying complaint in this action in November 2001. In their com-
    MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL v. BOYLE                     5
    plaint, the plaintiffs allege state law claims for fraud, breach of con-
    tract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, negligence, and conversion.
    In addition, the complaint asserts two federal claims under the Racke-
    teer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968
    . Specifically, count I of the complaint alleges that
    MDT was formed as a RICO "enterprise" within the meaning of 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1962
     and 1961 (West 2000 & Supp. 2003) with the
    objective of using the influence and position of Boyle and Pauley
    with the Commission to secure unauthorized compensation from the
    Commission, improperly secure contracts and bids, insulate certain
    vendors from scrutiny, and generate financial benefits for Boyle, Pau-
    ley and MDT. Count II alleges that MDT, IMCI, and Datalux formed
    a similar RICO "enterprise" within the meaning of 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1962
     and 1961 to use the influence and positions of Boyle and
    Pauley with the Commission to benefit the participants in the enter-
    prise in the same manner as in the first count. Both RICO counts
    allege mail and wire fraud as predicate acts.
    II.
    The district court dismissed the two RICO counts as to all defen-
    dants on the ground that the plaintiffs had "failed . . . to allege the
    existence of a pattern of racketeering activity which would permit
    their RICO claims to go forward." See Maryland-National Capital
    Park and Planning Comm’n v. Boyle, 
    203 F. Supp. 2d 468
    , 477 (D.
    Md. 2002).* The district court reasoned that Boyle and Pauley did
    nothing more than "violate[ ] their fiduciary responsibilities as
    employees by acting contrary to the best interests of the Commission,
    their employer." 
    Id.
     Given that this "conflict of interest arising in an
    employment context" provided "the essential basis for the RICO
    claims asserted in the complaint," the district court concluded that the
    plaintiffs had failed to make the requisite showing necessary to sus-
    tain a RICO cause of action. 
    Id.
    The court further reasoned that even if the fraudulent scheme
    engaged in by the defendants could be characterized as racketeering
    activity, the complaint failed to allege facts showing that such activity
    *The district court also dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs’ state
    law claims.
    6              MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL v. BOYLE
    met the continuity requirement necessary to make out a pattern of
    racketeering activity. 
    Id. at 477-78
    . The district court noted that
    "[m]issing from the complaint and necessary for pleading a viable
    RICO claim are allegations of widespread fraud and continuing racke-
    teering activity." 
    Id. at 477
    . In short, the court concluded that the
    claims advanced by the plaintiffs amounted to nothing more than "or-
    dinary or garden variety fraud claims." 
    Id.
    III.
    We have reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable law and have
    considered the oral arguments of the parties, and conclude that the
    district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the
    district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See Maryland-National Capital
    Park and Planning Comm’n v. Boyle, 
    203 F. Supp. 2d 468
     (D. Md.
    2002).
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1693

Citation Numbers: 63 F. App'x 98

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 4/16/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023