three elements; first, the enterprise violates state law; second, the illegal gambling business involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of such business; and third, the business was either in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty (30) days or had a gross revenue of $2,000.00 in a single day. United States v. 18755 N. Bay Rd., 13 F.3d 1493, 1496 (11th Cir.1994). When a civil RICO plaintiff attempts to base a RICO claim on illegal gambling, the plaintiff must prove these same elements. Additionally, the plaintiff must prove that he was “injured in his business or property by reason of’ the illegal gambling. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); see also Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602, 607 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, just as the plaintiffs must prove
holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit under seqraceqr because they failed to allege any property interest in the community gardens at issue holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a civil rico claim predicated on illegal gambling because they failed to allege a compensable injury