“others” are not enough to plead the requisite pattern of fraud. In Emery v. American General Finance, Inc. (“Emery I”), 71 F.3d 1343 (7th Cir.1995), we encountered facts substantially similar to those in the case at hand: The plaintiff pleaded with adequate particularity the fraud directed against her, but with regard to other customers of American General Finance alleged merely that the company did the same thing to them. There are no names or dates or other details of transactions involving any other customers besides Emery. These details ... are necessary to identify a violation of RICO, which requires ... more than one fraud and only one is alleged to have been perpetrated against Emery herself. Id. at 1348; see also Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Corp., 34 F.3d 1321, 1328 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Uni*Quality, Inc. v. Infotronx, Inc., 974
holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under  1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity holding that wire and mail fraud statutes are construed identically holding that a pattern of racketeering activity required multiple illegal schemes holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant engaged in multiple instances of mail and wire fraud did not allege pattern of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity