summary judgment. The above analysis does not affect the Idaho racketeering claims, because Idaho’s statute has a broader definition of predicate acts, which specifically includes securities fraud. See, I.C. § 18-7803(a)(13) & (16). For all the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the federal RICO causes of action not be dismissed on the basis of the securities fraud exception at this time. 3. RICO Proximate Cause Ellison also argues that RICO proximate cause is not pled with particularity. The Court disagrees. The Complaint establishes a very direct theory of causation: that the claimants were induced to invest in DBSI based upon false representations, and, as a result, lost money. Cf. Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York, NY., 559 U.S. 1, 130 S.Ct. 983, 175 L.Ed.2d 943 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The Complaint also alleges numerous
holding that whether proximate cause exists is to be decided in a common sense fashion in the light of the attending facts and circumstances and unless the facts are undisputed and admit of but one inference the question is for the jury holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding that rico proximate cause should be evaluated in light of its common law foundations holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury