## Facts

- Anthony Oliver, a Nevada resident, wagered on the Los Angeles Dodgers to win the World Series in two consecutive years.
- In 2017, Oliver placed a $7,500 bet in a casino that the Dodgers would defeat the Houston Astros in the World Series; the Dodgers lost.
- In 2018, Oliver placed a $6,000 bet through a sports-betting app that the Dodgers would defeat the Boston Red Sox in the World Series; the Dodgers lost.
- After public reporting about electronic sign-stealing in Major League Baseball, Oliver alleged the Astros and Red Sox used illicit sign-stealing schemes that tainted the World Series games.
- Oliver claimed the alleged cheating caused him to lose both wagers.
- Oliver sued the Astros and the Red Sox in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, asserting civil RICO claims (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964) and a state-law unjust enrichment claim, seeking to recover his betting losses (including treble damages under RICO).
- Oliver applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, requiring the court to screen the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether Oliver’s IFP complaint stated a plausible claim for relief or had to be dismissed at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. Whether alleged losses on third-party sports wagers constitute an injury to “business or property,” and were proximately caused “by reason of” the defendants’ conduct, as required for civil RICO.
3. Whether Oliver plausibly stated unjust enrichment against the teams when his bets were placed with a casino and an app rather than paid to the teams.

## Decision

- The court granted Oliver IFP status for purposes of filing and screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- After screening, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court concluded Oliver did not plausibly allege a recoverable civil RICO injury to “business or property,” or that his betting losses were proximately caused by the defendants’ alleged sign-stealing.
- The court concluded Oliver failed to plead unjust enrichment because he did not plausibly allege that he conferred a benefit on the defendant teams through his wagers placed with third-party betting operators.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous or fails to state a claim; the screening analysis tracks the plausibility standard used for Rule 12(b)(6).
- A civil RICO plaintiff must plausibly allege: (i) a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, (ii) injury to the plaintiff’s business or property, and (iii) that the injury occurred “by reason of” the RICO violation, which includes proximate cause.
- Proximate cause under civil RICO generally requires a direct relation between the alleged racketeering conduct and the plaintiff’s injury; harms that are indirect, derivative, or dependent on intervening decisions are typically insufficient.
- Unjust enrichment generally requires that the defendant received a benefit and that retention of the benefit would be unjust; a plaintiff must plausibly allege the enrichment occurred at the plaintiff’s expense rather than through transactions with third parties.

## Conclusion

In Oliver v. Houston Astros, LLC, the District of Nevada screened an IFP complaint by a sports bettor who alleged that MLB sign-stealing by the Astros and Red Sox caused him to lose two World Series wagers, and the court dismissed the action at the § 1915 stage because the complaint did not plausibly allege a civil RICO injury and proximate causation or show that the defendant teams were unjustly enriched by money Oliver wagered with third-party betting operators.


Oliver v. Houston Astros, LLC, 2020 WL 1430382 (2020)