to satisfy Plaintiffs’ pleading burden. See Purchase Real Estate, 2010 WL 3377504, at *8 (“While courts have made an exception to the particularity requirements and have allowed allegations to be based on information and belief when facts are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge, this exception must not be mistaken for license to base claims of fraud on speculation and conclusory allegations, especially in the context of RICO claims.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, Plaintiffs have not established open-ended continuity — which requires a threat of ongoing, continuing criminal activity — because they specifically allege that the enterprise ended in 2006. (7km. Compl. ¶¶ 639, 664.) See Purchase Real Estate, 2010 WL 3377504, at *11 (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiffs have not properly alleged
holding that the district court did not err in finding the record sufficient to conclude prior conviction qualified as a violent felony for purposes of the acca as the evidence was sufficient to conclude the criminal action charged in one court was the basis for a judgment against the defendant in a different court holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending holding that openended continuity was not established where plaintiffs had alleged no basis from which the court could conclude that continuation of the purported racketeering activities was likely at the time the complaint was filed holding that a jury could find a nineteen month period of racketeering activity sufficient to satisfy continuity requirement holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction