APPENDIX B A review of 704 RICO cases decided between January 1, 1987 and June 1, 1989 show that in 65%, RICO claims were dismissed pretrial. Of these dismissals, 21% constitute dismissals for failure to plead fraud with particularity, 49% constitute dismis sals for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and 30% constitute summary judgment dispositions. additional 37 cases (5% of the total) were partially dismissed for failure to satisfy RICO requirements. An Of the 224 cases dismissed for failure to state a claim upo which relief could be granted: 119 of the dismissals were justified as having failed to meet RICO's pattern requirement; 2 failed to meet the predicate acts requirement; 25 lacked standing; 4 were barred by the statute of limitations; 39 failed to meet the enterprise requirement; 7 were precluded by res judicata, and 10 were dismissed for other reasons. Thus, Rule 12(b) (6), which was the basis for nearly half of the dismissals, proved to be an economical and expeditious means of eliminating an inappropriate RICO charge. 61 of the 140 cases dismissed thorough summary judgment: were justified as having failed to meet RICO's pattern requirement; 26 failed to meet the predicate acts requirement; 10 lacked standing; 14 were barred by the statute of limitations; 9 failed to meet the enterprise requirement; 9 were precluded by res judicata; and 11 were dismissed for other reasons. |