TERRENCE L. JONES Versus PUBLISH AMERICA and VICTOR E. CRETELLA, III

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TERRENCE L. JONES *
Plaintiff *
v. * Civil Action No. AW-11-2075
PUBLISH AMERICA LLLP and *
VICTOR E. CRETELLA, III
*
Defendants
***
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff’s Court-Ordered supplement to the Complaint. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff
was directed to explain the nature of his injuries arising from the alleged violation of the RICO
Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961
et seq. ECF No. 4.
Title 18 U.S.C. §1964 provides for civil remedies for the violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962,
which prohibits racketeering and collection of debts related to those activities. This court has
addressed the purpose of the civil remedies provision in RICO:
The Supreme Court's analysis in
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.,
456 U.S. 556 (1982) is instructive.
The Court held that traditional agency rules of apparent authority apply
to the antitrust laws and that an organization may be held liable for the
antitrust violations of an agent who acts with apparent authority, even if
the acts were not committed to benefit the principal.
Id. 456 U.S. at 567–
68, 570, 102 S.Ct. 1935. The Court found that an important purpose of
the private cause of action created by the antitrust laws is the deterrence
of anticompetitive behavior.
Id. 456 U.S. at 572, 102 S.Ct. 1935. That
purpose is well-served when a principal is held liable for the antitrust
violations of its agent because it gives the principal a “powerful
incentive” to prevent future antitrust violations.
Id.
Thomas v. Ross & Hardies
, 9 F.Supp.2d 547, 557 (D. Md. 1998).
Case 8:11-cv-02075-AW Document 6 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 2
2
Plaintiff’s claim centers around the alleged breach of contract by Defendants in the
context of publishing books he wrote. ECF No. 1 and 5. He claims the contract was terminated
via e-mail, instead of registered mail, and that some of his books were published and sold
without paying him the royalties due. He adds that Defendants engaged in intimidation tactics in
order to force him to withdraw his lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court for Prince Georges County, Maryland. None of the allegations fall within the purview of antitrust violations. Additionally,having already litigated his breach of contract claim in state court, Plaintiff may not now relitigate what is in essence the same claim in this Court. Thus, the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, it is this 29 th day of September, 2011, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint IS DISMISSED;
2. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff; and
3. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.
/s/
Alexander Williams, Jr.
United States District Judge