Harold Brooks Leasure, Jr. v. Aa Advantage Forwarders

The Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth*
Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0237n.06
Filed: May 5, 2008
No. 07-5684
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD BROOKS LEASURE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AA ADVANTAGE FORWARDERS,
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY
Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM. Harold Brooks Leasure, Jr. brought a civil RICO suit
against eleven businesses and six individuals, alleging that they comprised and
controlled a RICO enterprise that fraudulently stole Leasure’s businesses. The
district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on several independent
grounds, including an absence of proximate cause. Reviewing de novo and

-- 1 of 3 --

2
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Leasure, Holloway v. Brush,
220 F.3d 767, 772 (6th Cir. 2000), we affirm.
In June 1999, defendant Coleman American entered into a contract to
purchase several moving and storage businesses owned by Leasure. Shortly
thereafter, Coleman American discovered that a number of the businesses’
accounts receivable were uncollectible. Coleman American brought suit against
Leasure in the Circuit Court of Christian County, Kentucky, arguing that Leasure
misrepresented his businesses’ accounts receivable. Coleman American prevailed
on fraud and breach of contract claims. Leasure then brought this civil RICO suit.
To sustain a civil RICO action, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the plaintiff must show
that “the alleged violation led directly to the plaintiff’s injuries.” Anza v. Ideal
Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 461 (2006). Leasure asserts that he was injured
because the defendants acquired his businesses by fraud. He also alleges that
defendant Coleman American brought a fraudulent lawsuit against him in state
court and argues, somewhat inconsistently, that (1) Coleman American’s lawsuit
was based on records falsified by Coleman American, and (2) that Coleman
American knew that Leasure had miscalculated the accounts receivable before it
purchased the businesses, but purchased the businesses anyway so that it could
exact a large money judgment from Leasure.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The only record evidence that Leasure cites to support this theory is a
statement made by Richard Cundith, Coleman American’s accountant. During the
state court proceeding, Cundith testified that he advised Coleman American
against purchasing Leasure’s businesses because the businesses had no formal set
of records. Though this might show that the defendants were aware that some of
Leasure’s representations might have been inaccurate, it does not support an
inference that the defendants knew that some of Leasure’s accounts receivable
would be uncollectible.
Leasure also suggests that the short time frame between the sale and the
filing of Coleman American’s state lawsuit shows that the defendants knew about
the inaccuracies in Leasure’s disclosures before the sale. Nothing supports this
inference. To the contrary, the record shows that Coleman American only
discovered the inaccuracies after it purchased Leasure’s businesses and
unsuccessfully attempted to collect on certain accounts.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --