Text of Court order dismissing Rye RICO case in CO.
Excerpt: Plaintiffs insist that the allegations of their complaint regarding the noxious order emanating from the marijuana grow operation near their property permit a reasonable inference that the value of their property is negatively impacted.2 I cannot agree. Plaintiffs’ allegations in this regard – apparently premised on an assumption that “everybody just knows it’s true” – are insufficient to meet their pleading burden. Plaintiffs provide no factual support to quantify or otherwise substantiate their inchoate concerns as to the diminution in value of their property. They do not allege the land has been appraised for lesser value than before the grow operation opened. They point to no concrete evidence (as opposed to mere inchoate fears) that potential purchasers have expressed concern about living near such a facility, much less declined to buy lots in the neighborhood development nearby.3 They do not even cite to any study or statistics that might demonstrate a causal relationship between the operation of such businesses and decreased property values. RICO standing, however, requires a showing of damages that are “clear and definite.”