discussed below, Brown's RICO claims based upon the predicate acts in paragraphs 35, 41, and 41A-along with those in paragraphs 32 and 34-fail to state claims for which relief may be granted. 7 . Moreover, as discussed below, Riggs’ RICO claims based upon the predicate act in paragraph 48 would fail to state claims for which relief may be granted for another reason. 8 . Moreover, Riggs’ RICO claims based upon the predicate act of mail fraud in paragraph 48 fail to state claims for which relief may be granted for another reason, as addressed below. 9 . However, Way’s RICO claims based upon the predicate acts in paragraphs 68 and 69 fail to state claims for which relief may be granted, as discussed below. 10 . See VanDenBroeck v. CommonPoint Mortgage Co., 210 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Armbruster v. K-H Corporation, 206 F.Supp.2d
holding in a civil rico case based upon predicate acts of mail and wire fraud that the plaintiff must plead a material misrepresentation of fact that was calculated or intended to deceive persons of reasonable prudence and comprehension and that the plaintiff relied upon that material misrepresentation to establish the fraud statutes requisite scheme to defraud holding that rule 9bs heightened pleading requirement applies to allegations of mail and wire fraud used as predicate acts for a rico claim holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation or knowingly omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission holding that in the context of mail and wire fraud a plaintiff must have justifiably relied to his detriment on the defendants material misrepresentations holding that although fraudulent scheme must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension the negligence of the victim in failing to discover a fraudulent scheme is not a defense to criminal conduct