Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANTOON, District Judge. Lockheed Martin has filed a twenty-three count Complaint against the Boeing Company and certain individuals related to their alleged theft of trade secrets pertaining to a bid competition to provide the U.S. Government space launch capability. Defendants the Boeing Company, William Erskine, Larry Satchell, and Kenneth Branch have all filed motions to dismiss several of the counts of Lockheed Martin’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, Defendants seek dismissal of all of the claims pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Florida Civil Remedies For Criminal Activities Act stated in Counts I — IV (“the racketeering claims” and the “racketeering conspiracy claims”) and of all of the claims brought under the Sherman Act and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980 stated in Counts V — VIII (the “attempted monopolization claims” and the “conspiracy to monopolize claims”). William Erskine’s motion also seeks a more definite statement from Lockheed. This memorandum and order supplement the Court’s order of March 31, 2004. (Doc. 189, filed March 31, 2004.) I. BACKGROUND Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”) is a company heavily involved in the defense and aerospace industries, including satellite launch services. The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) competes with Lockheed in the satellite launch services business. This competition extended to the multi-billion dollar Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (“EELV”) Program, an Air Force program seeking assistance from the private sector to develop a cost-efficient national space launch capability. The Air Force contemplated that interested aerospace contractors would engage in a multi-phased competition covering the design, development, and prototyping of the EELV. Initially, the Air Force planned to select the contractor that submitted the proposal representing the “best value” to the Air Force in a “winner take all” competition. The winner was to be awarded $1 billion for the development cost of the EELV as well as contracts for future space launches. The first phase of the competition was called the “Low Cost Concept Validation” (“LCCV”) and it required competitors to develop cost and risk reduction concepts. On August 24, 1995, the Air Force awarded LCCV contracts to four contractors: Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Alliant Techsystems. The Air Force agreed to pay each competitor $30 million for its participation. The Air Force then called upon the participating companies to submit proposals for the next phase of the competition, which was called “Pre-Engineering and Manufacturing Development” (“Pre-EMD”). The proposals were required to show at least a twenty-five percent savings over current launch costs. On December 20, 1995, after receiving the proposals, the Air Force eliminated two of the competitors, Alliant Techsystems and Boeing, and awarded Pre-EMD contracts to Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. Approximately eight months later, Boeing re-entered the competition when it acquired McDonnell Douglas. On November 3, 1997 the Air Force changed its acquisition policy by abandoning the “winner take all” approach. The Air Force announced that, instead, it would award each of the two remaining competitors — Lockheed and Boeing — $500 million Engineering, Manufacturing and Development contracts (“the EMD contracts”). The EMD contracts awarded to Lockheed and Boeing required that they each develop the engineering and manufacturing process for the “launch vehicle system, launch pads, satellite interfaces, and support infrastructure.” The contracts required each of the competitors to demonstrate that its system was capable of launching commercial satellites as well as meeting the Air Force’s launch mission requirements. Also under the new Air Force strategy, the contractors were expected to submit firm, fixed-price bids for the initial thirty launch missions. Information generated by the bidders in the earlier phases of the bid remained relevant to the final award. Believing the winning contractor would enjoy “an enhanced position in the national and international commercial space launch vehicle market from [Department of Defense’s] investment in the program,” the Air Force also required each contractor to make a financial investment in the new technology. At the end of the Pre-EMD phase, the Air Force requested that Lockheed and Boeing submit separate proposals for EMD contracts and Launch Services contracts. The Air Force advised the contractors that its allocation of the initial thirty launch missions would be based on which company’s proposal would provide the best value to the Air Force. On October 16, 1998, much to Lockheed’s disappointment, the Air Force awarded nineteen of the first twenty-eight initial Launch Services contracts to Boeing and only nine to Lockheed. Additionally, the first seven of the Launch Services contracts went to Boeing, while Lockheed’s first launch contract was not to take place until the fourth fiscal year of the EELV program. In making this uneven allocation, the Air Force took into account Boeing’s lower proposed price, Boeing’s lower evaluated risk in several assessment categories, and the Air Force’s determination that Boeing’s proposal was technically equivalent to Lockheed’s proposal. These were factors contributing to the Air Force’s assessment as to which company offered the “best value.” The Air Force is now considering expanding the EELV program from thirty to fifty launches within the next ten to twelve years. Lockheed believes the original disproportionate allocation places it at a distinct disadvantage in competing for future Launch Services contracts. All three of the individual Defendants are former Boeing employees. Kenneth Branch (“Branch”) began work with General Dynamics, Lockheed’s predecessor, at Cape Canaveral, Florida in 1989, and stayed on when Lockheed took over. He worked on the Atlas I and Atlas II launches and continued to be assigned to Lockheed facilities at Cape Canaveral or Kennedy Space Center until he terminated his employment with the company on January 29,1997. In May 1995, Lockheed temporarily assigned Branch to Lockheed’s Denver facility to assist with the company’s LCCV proposal. Because of his experience with the Atlas II, which was the starting point for the EELV design concept, Branch was again asked to assist with the EELV proposal team at the Denver facility from October 1995 to August 1996. During his second assignment to the Denver facility, Branch was a member of the Operations Group and focused on cost data and on reduction of launch vehicle processing time at the launch site. While performing this work for Lockheed, Branch had access to sensitive Lockheed proprietary documents. In August 1996, about the time Lockheed was completing its Pre-EMD proposal, Branch returned to Florida to find that his position with Lockheed had been eliminated. He maintained a position with the company as a consultant to the EELV team in Denver, however, while he sought another position. On November 3, 1996, Branch accepted a position with Lockheed’s Reusable Launch Vehicle program in Florida. On January 14, 1997, Branch gave Lockheed two weeks’ notice of his intention to leave and resigned effective January 29, 1997. Surprisingly, he began employment with Boeing on January 28, 1997, the day before his employment with Lockheed ended. Branch continued to work for Boeing until August 2, 1999, when he was terminated for violating Boeing policy by possessing and distributing Lockheed EELV-related proprietary documents during the EELV competition — the conduct that ultimately gave rise to this suit. Lockheed alleges that as early as August 1996, when it was finalizing its Pre-EMD proposal, Branch traveled to Boeing’s facilities in Huntington Beach, California to be interviewed by Boeing employees Tom Alexiou (“Alexiou”) and William Erskine (“Erskine”) regarding possible employment with Boeing. Mr. Alexiou was Boeing’s EELV Infrastructure Team Lead and Erskine was Boeing’s EELV Ground Operations Lead. At this meeting, Branch allegedly showed Erskine Lockheed documents including a presentation entitled “EELV Launch Operations Cycle Time Reduction,” a document that contained trade secrets and was marked as Lockheed property. This document described Lockheed’s strategy for reduction of costs and reduction of the time period a launch vehicle must remain on a pad in preparation for a flight. During the meeting, Mr. Alexiou questioned Branch regarding elements of Lockheed’s EELV proposal, including engines and performance. Branch disclosed Lockheed’s plan for reducing costs of its EELV program and gave the two Boeing employees other Lockheed documents. While still employed by Lockheed and prior to being hired by Boeing, Branch had at least two other meetings with Boeing employees assigned to the EELV program. On January 14, 1996 Boeing offered Branch a position on Boeing’s EELV proposal team. Branch immediately accepted the offer and Branch began work on January 28, 1997. When Branch joined the Boeing EELV proposal team, Boeing officials then questioned him about his work with the Lockheed EELV program. At one point Mr. Alexiou, introducing Branch to Tom Parkinson, Boeing’s Vice-President, and to program managers, described Branch as a former Lockheed employee who knew the details of Lockheed’s EELV program. Boeing officials questioned Branch regarding Lockheed’s proprietary and trade secret information, including strategy, cost, and other information relevant to Lockheed’s EELV proposal. On February 19, 1997, Branch returned to Huntington Beach, where he met with Boeing’s EELV Capture Team. A short time later he was assigned on paper to Mr. Alexiou’s office in Huntington Beach even though his office was actually in Florida. According to Lockheed, Branch made forty-three trips to Huntington Beach to provide Boeing with Lockheed proprietary information and trade secrets. Boeing promoted Branch to the position of Ground Command Control & Communication Mechanical Equipment Lead in charge of sixty employees responsible for developing the electrical ground support system for EELV launches. After starting with Boeing, Branch spent time with Larry Satchell (“Satch-ell”), Boeing’s EELV Program Manager of Strategic Planning and Analysis. Lockheed charges that Satchell’s position with Boeing was also known as the “Black Hat Team Leader” because one of his job responsibilities was to gather information about Lockheed’s EELV Program for Boeing’s benefit. By speaking with former Lockheed employees, Satchell attempted to discover technical and cost aspects of Lockheed’s EELV proposal. This information was sought to give Boeing a better chance of proposing a lower price to the Air Force. Satchell had numerous conversations with Branch regarding Lockheed’s EELV program, and Branch gave him Lockheed proprietary and trade secret information, including cost data. Kimberly Tran, a Boeing software engineer, became alarmed upon seeing Branch in possession of a binder containing Lockheed proprietary materials while on the Boeing premises at Huntington Beach. Ms. Tran reported the incident to her Boeing supervisors. When Mr. Alexiou learned of Ms. Tran’s report he told her she should have made the report to him instead of to her supervisors. Mr. Alexiou maintains that Boeing conducted an investigation in response to Ms. Tran’s report and the investigation cleared Branch of wrongdoing. Boeing has since admitted, however, that there is no record of the investigation. In June of 1999, Steve Griffin, a Boeing engineer, heard Erskine boast that he had offered Branch the Boeing job in exchange for the Lockheed EELV proposal. Mr. Griffin reported these remarks made by Erskine to the Boeing Human Resources Representative and the Boeing Delta IV launch site manager. Coincidentally, Mr. Griffin’s wife, Bridget Griffin, was an engineer with Lockheed at this time and made a similar report outlining Erskine’s remarks to a Lockheed ethics officer. Lockheed contends that, when Mr. Griffin made his report, Boeing became aware that it could no longer conceal the fact that Boeing had received proprietary information and trade secrets. Only then did Boeing report the situation to Boeing’s lawyer, Mark Rabe. Mr. Rabe began his investigation of the report by speaking to Mr. Griffin, who repeated what Erskine had told him. Ers-kine allegedly said that Branch had come to Erskine and offered him the entire Lockheed EELV proposal to assist Ers-kine in preparing Boeing’s EELV proposal. Erskine also told Mr. Griffin that he had told Branch that if Boeing were not eliminated from the competition, Branch would have a job with Boeing in return for the Lockheed information. Indeed, as soon as the Air Force selected Lockheed and Boeing for the final phase of the competition, Boeing hired Branch. Erskine added that the documents delivered by Branch assisted Boeing in explaining weaknesses in Lockheed’s proposal to the Air Force. When Mr. Griffin suggested to Erskine that his conduct was unethical, Erskine replied that he did not care because he had been hired to win the bid and he would do whatever it took to do so. Mr. Rabe interviewed Branch in June and July 1999. Upon questioning by Mr. Rabe, Branch disclosed a stack of Lockheed documents located in his office and admitted that they were Lockheed property. After this disclosure, Branch was suspended pending further investigation. After the suspension, other Lockheed documents, marked “proprietary,” were found in Branch’s office, including one marked “Satchell EELV Observations.” Mr. Rabe also interviewed Erskine, who confirmed that he had been part of the Boeing EELV team when he met with Branch in August 1996. Lockheed alleges that by the end of June 1999 Boeing was aware of the facts outlined above. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Boeing intentionally and fraudulently withheld this information from Lockheed and the Air Force to protect Boeing’s interest in the EELV program. Lockheed maintains that in continuing the cover-up, Boeing’s in-house lawyer, Gary Black, telephoned Lockheed’s Deputy General Counsel, Stephen E. Smith, on June 29, 1999 and said that he had just learned that Boeing had hired Branch, who had brought two Lockheed documents dated 1996 to Boeing. Mr. Black told Mr. Smith that Boeing had suspended Branch. Mr. Black added that there was no indication that the two documents in Branch’s possession had been seen or used by anyone on Boeing’s EELV proposal team. Upon Mr. Smith’s request, Mr. Black also spoke to Michael Kramer, General Counsel of Lockheed Astronautics. Mr. Black repeated his understated assessment of the facts to Mr. Kramer and assured him that none of the information from Branch had been seen by Boeing personnel or used in preparing Boeing’s EELV proposal. Relying on the representations that only two documents had been found and that they had not been seen by' Boeing EELV personnel, Lockheed did not take action at that time. On November 1, 1999, Mr. Black again called Mr. Kramer to inform him that another fifteen Lockheed documents possibly containing proprietary and trade secret information were in Boeing’s possession. Despite what had been gleaned from the Boeing internal investigation, Mr. Black represented that the documents were all dated earlier than 1996, that they had not been out of Boeing’s Florida office, and that they had not been seen by anyone on Boeing’s EELV proposal team. In this conversation Mr. Black assured Mr. Kramer that Branch was a “first line engineer” and that he was not involved with Boeing’s EELV proposal team. The fifteen documents Mr. Black referred to were sent to Lockheed. Upon receipt, the documents were inspected and fourteen were found to have been proprietary and confidential. Nonetheless, based on the foregoing assurances from Mr. Black that the documents had not been seen by the EELV proposal team, Lockheed continued to believe it had not been injured. After Mr. Black’s last conversation with Mr. Kramer, Boeing fired Branch and Ers-kine. Thereafter, Branch and Erskine initiated an action against Boeing for wrongful termination (“the Erskine litigation”). During that litigation, a lawyer for Boeing contacted Lockheed to advise that, as evidence of Erskine and Branch’s misconduct, Boeing was prepared to file a box of Lockheed documents that “might be proprietary.” Boeing asserted along with the submission that it had found the box in Branch’s office in June or July of 1999. These documents detailed Lockheed’s specific cost estimates and pricing strategies, including labor plans and cost-cutting measures, for Lockheed’s EELV proposal. The documents also made it possible for Boeing to direct its efforts toward developing technology that it had not previously possessed. The documents, furthermore, revealed that Boeing had hired Branch because of his access to Lockheed’s proprietary and trade secret information. Though it was not a party in the Erskine litigation, Lockheed sought review of documents filed with the court in connection with that case, but Boeing objected on grounds that the documents were protected from inspection by order of court. Lockheed’s motion to review the documents in the Erskine litigation was denied. In March 2002, Valerie Sehurman, Boeing Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, wrote to Lockheed and stated that she could not explain why all the documents obtained from Mssrs. Erskine and Branch had not been sent to Lockheed in 1999. Ms. Sehurman concluded, “At any rate, all documents have now been transmitted to you and I would like to apologize for the series of errors that have occurred in handling this case.” Notwithstanding this representation, in April of 2002, Boeing issued an “Investigative Report” stating that it “possessed approximately two boxes of Lockheed documents.” In May 2002, Mr. Smith asked Ms. Schur-man to confirm that Boeing possessed only the two boxes of Lockheed documents mentioned earlier. Confirming her earlier report, Ms. Sehurman replied: “On your question about documents, I think we’ve answered that a number of times. We have provided you with all Lockheed documents of which we are aware.” This, too, turned out to be incorrect. On April 23, 2003, while the Air Force was conducting an investigation of Boeing, Steven Horton, Boeing’s Chief Counsel at its Seal Beach, California office, admitted to Mr. Smith, Lockheed’s counsel, that Boeing had ten additional boxes of Lockheed documents, three or four of which might contain Lockheed proprietary information and one or two of which might contain trade secrets belonging to Lockheed’s predecessors, including General Dynamics. Mr. Horton explained that the documents had been removed from Branch’s office and that Boeing’s Law Department believed the relevant documents had been turned over to Lockheed. Mr. Horton assented to Mr. Smith’s request for the documents. On April 24, 2003, Lockheed received nineteen documents, eighteen of which contained Lockheed or General Dynamics proprietary markings. Included in the documents were the detailed launch operations plan for Lockheed’s EELV launch vehicle and an internal strategic plan containing cost estimates. On April 26, 2003, Boeing sent eleven more boxes of Lockheed documents to Lockheed’s outside counsel. Those boxes also contained Lockheed proprietary and trade secret information. Boeing continued to produce Lockheed documents in its possession. On May 9 and May 23, 2003, Boeing sent Lockheed another four boxes of Lockheed proprietary and trade secret information. On June 2, 2003, Boeing turned over copies of two e-mail messages from Branch to another Boeing employee attaching Lockheed proprietary documents. On June 4, Boeing surrendered another 1,850 pages of Lockheed documents, and finally, on June 6, 2003 Boeing advised Lockheed that it had still more Lockheed documents in its possession. By the time the Complaint in this case was filed on June 10, 2003, Boeing had turned over 37,173 pages of Lockheed documents. II. MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Erskine describes Lockheed’s Complaint as a “shotgun pleading” and seeks a more definite statement from Lockheed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). (Doc. 55 at 2.) A court should not grant a Rule 12(e) motion unless the pleading in question is “so vague that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e); Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 11 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir.1996). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals refers to the most vague pleadings as “shotgun pleadings.” One typical feature of a shotgun pleading is incorporation of the same lengthy allegations into each claim alleged, which makes it difficult “to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson, 11 F.3d at 366. Lockheed’s Complaint is not a shotgun pleading. Lockheed does repeatedly incorporate into each Count all of the general allegations in paragraphs 1-168. In each Count, however, Lockheed also reiterates in detail the particular relevant portions of those general allegations. Erskine was able to and did file adequate responsive motions to this Complaint. For these reasons, Ers-kine’s motion for a more definite statement is denied. III. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM For purposes of a motion to dismiss, a court must view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Jackson v. Okaloosa County, Fla., 21 F.3d 1531, 1534 (11th Cir.1994). Furthermore, a court must accept all reasonable inferences from the complaint and consider all allegations as true. Id. A court may not, however, accept conclusory allegations and unwarranted factual deductions as true. Gersten v. Rundle, 833 F.Supp. 906, 910 (S.D.Fla.1993) (citing Associated Builders, Inc., v. Ala. Power Co., 505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir.1974)). Only pleadings and attached written exhibits may be considered in making these determinations. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 10(c); GSW, Inc., v. Long County, Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir.1993). Unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Runnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir.1994). “Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are particularly disfavored in fact-intensive antitrust cases.” Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp., 299 F.3d 1272, 1279 (11th Cir.2002). A plaintiff is “entitled to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) if there is any set of facts that, if proven at trial, would entitle [it] to recover.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 551 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983). A court may not assume, however, that a plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged or that a defendant has violated laws in ways that have not been alleged. Id. at 526, 103 S.Ct. 897; Beck v. Interstate Brands Corp., 953 F.2d 1275, 1276 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam). Nor is the court bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. See B.H. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). Although the federal rules embrace a liberal pleading standard, bald assertions and conclusions of law will not defeat a properly supported motion to dismiss. See Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.1996). IV. THE RACKETEERING CLAIMS In Counts I — IV of the Complaint, Lockheed alleges that it is entitled to civil damages because the Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Activities Act (“the Florida RICO Act”). In Count I, Lockheed contends that Boeing, Erskine, Satchell, Branch, together with Alexiou, Black, and others known and unknown to Lockheed Martin, acting in concert and on behalf of Boeing, have unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally conducted and are continuing to conduct [through a pattern of racketeering activity] an enterprise referred to herein as the “Boeing Trade Secrets Theft Enterprise,” an association in fact. This same enterprise includes, and may not be limited to, the “Boeing EKV Proposal Team,” and, more recently, the “Boeing EELV Proposal team.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 175-77.) The proposed Boeing Trade Secrets Theft Enterprise (“BTSTE”) allegedly existed to steal trade secrets not only from Lockheed, but also from other competitors, including Ray-theon, with whom Boeing competed to win the Missile Defense Agency’s EKV contract, and AssureSat. (Doe. 1 ¶¶ 156-63.) Count I is based on section 1962(c) of RICO, which provides that It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 18 U.S.C § 1962(c) (2001) (emphasis added); see 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (providing for private right of action and civil damages). In Count II, Lockheed alleges that, in violation of section 1962(d) of RICO, the Defendants all conspired to violate section 1962(c). Section 1962(d) provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). In Counts III and IV, Lockheed attempts to state claims under parallel provisions of the Florida RICO Act, sections 772.103(3) and (4) of the Florida Statutes. Lockheed alleges that all of the Defendants are “persons” within the RICO definition because they are entities capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property, and that the BTSTE is an “association-in-fact” enterprise. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3)-(4). In their motions to dismiss, Defendants make several arguments: (1) that the allegations would not support a finding that Lockheed’s proposed enterprise, the BTSTE, was an ongoing organization and thus a true “enterprise”; (2) that, in light of the distinctness rule, Boeing may not be liable as a “person” who associated with the BTSTE; (3) that Lockheed has not sufficiently alleged a “pattern of racketeering activity;” and (4) that Lockheed’s conspiracy claims necessarily fail if Lockheed has failed to state a sufficient underlying racketeering claim. A. The BTSTE as the “Enterprise”: RICO & The Florida RICO Act Defendants argue that Lockheed fails to state a claim under section 1962(c) because the Complaint does not contain allegations that would support a finding that the BTSTE is an association-in-fact enterprise. (See, e.g., Doc. 46 at 9.) Under RICO, an enterprise “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) (2001). The existence of an enterprise “is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981). Defendants contend that proof of the facts alleged would not support a finding that the BTSTE is an “ongoing organization” in which the “various associates function as a continuing unit” because Lockheed’s definition of the enterprise consists “entirely of two Boeing bid proposal teams,” which “makes clear that ... the enterprise itself ... ended upon proposal submission, after which the proposal teams by definition ceased to exist.” (Doc. 46 at 9; see also Doc. 41 at 5; Doc. 55 at 4.) Defendants suggest that, under Turk-ette, a plaintiff must allege that an association-in-fact enterprise was made up of a “coherent association of members.” (See, e.g., Doc. 46 at 9 n. 7.) This argument, however, was rejected in United States v. Hewes, in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that shifting associations can form an enterprise if the participants “overlapped to a significant degree.” 729 F.2d 1302, 1311 (11th Cir.1984). The court confirmed this in 1985, when it stated that Turkette did not alter the rule that [RICO does not require that an] enterprise ... possess an “ascertainable structure” distinct from the associations necessary to conduct the pattern of racketeering activity.... Moreover, [the Eleventh Circuit has also rejected] the contention that Turkette’s reference to the RICO enterprise as a “continuing unit” required participation of all members throughout the life of the enterprise. United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1537 n. 13 (11th Cir.1985). Defendants’ arguments hinging on the lack of a “coherent association” are therefore unavailing. Defendants also suggest that under Turk-ette, there must be some organization or purpose distinct from the object of the enterprise’s criminal acts. (See, e.g., Doc. 46 at 9-10 n. 7.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected this reading of Turkette in Hewes, in which it held that a plaintiff need not allege “a definable structure distinct from the ‘racketeering activity.’ ” 729 F.2d at 1310. In this circuit, “the definitive factor in determining the existence of an enterprise [is] an association of individuals, however loose or informal, which furnishes a vehicle for the commission of two or more predicate crimes....” Weinstein, 762 F.2d at 1537. The Court of Appeals has also stated that an enterprise exists if persons “associate formally or informally, with the purpose of conducting illegal activity.” Hewes, 729 F.2d at 1311, quoted in Weinstein, 762 F.2d at 1537. Lockheed’s allegations satisfy these very broad definitions of a RICO enterprise. It is true that the focus of Lockheed’s Complaint, including the RICO allegations, is the Defendants’ conduct with regard to the EELV bid. The allegations about the enterprise, however, do — if only just barely — allege that the BTSTE was ongoing and continuing. The association-in-fact enterprise is, for example, alleged to include members of a proposal team unrelated to the EELV project, the “EKV Proposal Team.” This allegation refers to claims in the Complaint that, as “part of a pattern and practice by Boeing to engage in economic espionage,” Boeing employees were involved in stealing trade secrets not just from Lockheed, but also from Raytheon (Boeing’s competitor in the Missile Defense Agency’s EKV competition), and also from AssureSat. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 156-61.) Both the proposed enterprise and these other allegations suggest that the BTSTE had a life beyond the EELV proposal. Lockheed also alleges that the enterprise members’ illegal activity was allegedly geared toward not just the EELV bid, but toward “procuring, analyzing, and using the highly sensitive, proprietary and trade secret information of its competitors, including, without limitation, Lockheed Martin.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 175) (emphasis added.) These allegations add to the implication that winning the EELV bid was only “one ostensible purpose” of the BTSTE and that Lockheed will attempt to prove that the enterprise existed to continually steal from several or all of Boeing’s competitors. (See id.) Lockheed has thus sufficiently alleged a RICO enterprise. Whether Boeing may be held liable as a defendant “person” who “associated with” that ongoing and continuing enterprise also requires discussion. B. Boeing as a “Person”: RICO & The Florida RICO Act 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) & Section 772.108(3), Fla. Stat. Boeing challenges the allegations that it is a RICO defendant “person” who associated with the alleged enterprise, the BTSTE. The BTSTE, again, is alleged to “include[ ], and may not be limited to, the ‘Boeing EKV Proposal Team,’ and, more recently, the ‘Boeing EELV Proposal team.’ ” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 175-77.) Boeing concedes that a corporation may be a “person” under section 1961(3), but argues that the Boeing corporation is not sufficiently distinct from the enterprise as alleged. Because of the lack of distinctness between it and the alleged enterprise, Boeing urges that it cannot be a defendant “person” and that dismissal of the RICO claims against it is required. Under section 1962(c), the allegations “must name a RICO person distinct from the RICO enterprise.” United States v. Goldin Indus., 219 F.3d 1268, 1271 (2000) (“Goldin I”). This is because “the plain language of § 1962(c) envisions two separate entities, which comports with legislative intent and policy.” Id. at 1270. This distinctness rule “reflects Congress’ intention in § 1962(c) to target a specific variety of criminal activity, ‘the exploitation and appropriation of legitimate businesses by corrupt individuals.’ ” Id. (quoting Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union, 639, 888 F.2d 132, 139 (D.C.Cir.1989), rev’d in part on other grounds, 913 F.2d 948 (D.C.Cir.1990) (en banc)). When the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently adopted the distinctness rule in Goldin I, it joined all of the other circuits and overruled the contrary prior decision of a three-judge panel in United States v. Hartley, 678 F.2d 961 (11th Cir.1998). Courts have applied this rule in several ways to preclude suits against corporations. For example, the rule has prevented a plaintiff from naming a corporation as both the person and the enterprise, Haroco v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F.2d 384, 402 (7th Cir.1984); from naming a corporation as the person and naming a division of that corporation as the enterprise, United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982), overruled on other grounds by Busby v. Crown Supply, Inc., 896 F.2d 833, 840 (4th Cir.1990); from naming a corporation as the person and naming a grouping of that corporation’s subsidiaries as the enterprise, Discon v. NYNEX Corp., 93 F.3d 1055, 1063 (2d Cir.1996) (contra Haroco, 747 F.2d at 402); and from naming a corporation as the person and naming a grouping of that corporation’s own employees and agents as the enterprise, Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, 30 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir.1994). It is on the Riverwoods application of the rule that Boeing hangs its hat. Boeing characterizes the alleged enterprise as a grouping of divisions of Boeing (the EELV and EKV proposal teams), Boeing employees (Erskine and Satchell) and a Boeing “agent” (Branch). Boeing argues it cannot be named as a RICO “person” because the alleged enterprise is “nothing more than a subdivision or a part of’ Boeing and thus Boeing is no more distinct from the BTSTE than the corporation in River-woods was from the grouping of the corporations’ employees and agents alleged in that case to be the enterprise. (Doc. 46 at 6.) Lockheed counters that because Branch was not technically a Boeing employee or agent at all relevant times, Boeing is sufficiently distinct from the enterprise that includes Branch. According to Lockheed, Boeing was simply one of many distinct members of the association-in-fact enterprise, the BTSTE. Lockheed analogizes this case to one in which a district court held that “where the alleged enterprise consists of a corporation and its present and former employees who allegedly continued their racketeering activity after leaving their employment in the corporation, the pleadings sufficiently allege an enterprise separate and distinct from the RICO persons.” Ctr. Cadillac, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 808 F.Supp. 213, 236 (S.D.N.Y.1992), aff'd, 99 F.3d 401 (2d Cir.1995). Because Branch was neither formally an employee or agent of Boeing, nor completely disassociated from Boeing like an ex-employee, neither the facts of River-woods nor those of Center Cadillac are convincingly analogous to the facts presented here. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Goldin, 219 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir.2000) (“Goldin II”), along with Riverwoods, two other important Second Circuit distinctness eases, and the only Supreme Court distinctness case, Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. Don King, 533 U.S. 158, 121 S.Ct. 2087, 150 L.Ed.2d 198 (2001), demonstrates that distinctness is a fact-intensive inquiry that is not driven solely by formal legal relationships among the alleged “associates in fact.” Even where formalities were important to the distinctness inquiries in these cases, the courts were guided by commonsense readings of the complaints in the context of the RICO statute and by the purposes of the statute. These cases show that the allegations of Branch’s “association with” the BTSTE does not make Boeing sufficiently distinct from the BTSTE to render Boeing a “person” under RICO. The first and only case in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied the distinctness rule must guide the analysis of Lockheed’s allegations. In Goldin II, the court found that each of three corporations — Goldin Mississippi, Goldin Alabama, and Goldin Louisiana — was sufficiently distinct from an alleged association-in-fact enterprise consisting of the three corporations, such that each corporation could be a RICO defendant “person.” 219 F.3d at 1277. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, despite mutual connection to the original Goldin and some overlapping ownership, each corporate “person” was truly “separate and distinct. Each is incorporated in a separate state. Each is a separate ongoing business with a separate customer base. Each is free to act independently and advance its own interests contrary to those of the other two corporations.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered the facts in Goldin II to lie somewhere in between those in two Second Circuit cases, Securitron Magnalock Corp. v. Schnabolk and Discon, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp. Goldin II, 219 F.3d at 1277. In Securitron, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that even though two corporations had the same owner and president, each corporation was sufficiently distinct from an enterprise consisting of the two corporations and their owner because the corporations were “independent entit[ies].” 65 F.3d 256, 263 (2d Cir.1995). In Discon, in contrast, the same court upheld the dismissal of a complaint that named a parent holding company, NYNEX, and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries as “persons” who had illegally conducted the affairs of an association-in-fact enterprise made up of those same three companies. 93 F.3d 1055, 1063 (2d Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds 525 U.S. 128, 119 S.Ct. 493, 142 L.Ed.2d 510 (1998). The court in Discon reasoned that, despite the fact that the subsidiaries were legally distinct from the holding company, they were in fact indistinct from the holding company with whom they allegedly formed the association-in-fact enterprise. Id. at 1064. This was because the subsidiaries acted “on behalf of the” NYNEX. Id. This holding made clear that formally separate entities are not always truly distinct for RICO purposes. Id. at 1063-64 (distinguishing Cul len v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698 (2d Cir.1987), in which the Second Circuit found that a municipality, the town’s Republican Committee, and the county’s Republican Committee were both legally distinct and capable of being be differentiated from the enterprise-group). Discon only confirmed what had been hinted at by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Riverwoods. In the latter case, real estate developers who had borrowed from Marine Midland Bank’s predecessor alleged that when the Bank acquired the predecessor, the Bank and several of its vice presidents illegally forced the borrowers to restructure their loans. The plaintiffs sought RICO civil damages from the Bank itself, alleging that the Bank was a “person” who illegally conducted the affairs of the “Restructuring Group Enterprise,” an association-in-fact consisting of the Bank itself and the employees who had negotiated the restructuring. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Bank was not distinct enough from the proposed enterprise to justify a claim against the Bank as a RICO “person.” In Rivenuoods, the court wrote that the distinctness principle “may not be circumvented” by artful pleading such as alleging that the employees of the corporation, rather than just the corporation, make up the enterprise. Id.; see also Discon, 93 F.3d at 1063 (quoting this language). Thus, though the distinctness rule “does not foreclose the possibility of a corporate entity being held hable as a defendant under section 1962(c) where it associates with others to form an enterprise,” the rule does foreclose the prospect of a eorpo-ration being held liable where it associates with others who are not “sufficiently distinct from itself.” Riverwoods, 30 F.3d at 344. The court did consider traditional notions of the formal legal relationship of employee/agent to employer important to the distinctness inquiry presented by the facts of that case. Riverwoods, 30 F.3d at 344 (“Because a corporation can only function through its employees and agents, any act of the corporation can be viewed as an act of such an enterprise, and the enterprise is in reality no more than the defendant [person] itself.”). The opinion as a whole, however, makes the point that the ultimate test of sufficient distinctness does not always turn on “legal fictions.” Whether a corporation may be named as a RICO “person” cannot be said to be dependent solely on formalities or reducible to a single set of rules because, as the Second Circuit noted, the distinctness rule is rooted in the language of 1962(c), “comports with legislative intent and policy,” and “recognizes that the enterprise is often a passive instrument or victim of racketeering activity.” Riverwoods, 30 F.3d at 343. The only Supreme Court case to address the distinctness rule, Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. Don King, 533 U.S. 158, 121 S.Ct. 2087, 150 L.Ed.2d 198 (2001), echoes Riverwoods by instructing that the designations of “persons” and “enterprises” should fit naturally into the language of the statute and should effectuate the purposes of the statute. In Cedric Kush-ner, the Supreme Court held that the RICO distinctness principle was not offended by charging Don King, the individual, as a “person” who associated with or was employed by the “enterprise,” Don King Productions, an incorporated entity of which King was the president and sole shareholder. 533 U.S. at 163, 121 S.Ct. 2087. The Court wrote that it found nothing in the statute to require more “separateness” than that entailed by the different legal status an individual has from his incorporated self. Id. Contrary to Lockheed’s suggestion at oral argument, however, Cedric Kushner does not stand for the proposition that formal legal relationships or a lack thereof among those allegedly “associated in fact” will always be determinative of distinctness in every case. (See Tr. of Hr’g on Mot. to Dismiss at 87-90.) The opinion as a whole, like those of Riverwoods and Discon, makes clear that distinctness is not always commensurate with “legal fictions.” As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had in Riverwoods, the Supreme Court noted in Cedric Kushner that the distinctness requirement arises from the language of section 1962(c), which “says that it applies to ‘person[s]’ who are ‘employed by or associated with’ the ‘enterprise.’ In ordinary English one speaks of employing, being employed by or associating with others, not oneself.” Cedric Kushner, 533 U.S. at 161, 121 S.Ct. 2087 (citations omitted). It was natural, the Court wrote, to speak of Don King, “a corporate employee, as ‘a person employed by or associated with’ the corporation,” Don King Productions. Id. at 164, 121 S.Ct. 2087. The Court distinguished the facts in River-woods because in that case it was “less natural to speak of [the Bank] as ‘employed by’ or ‘associated with’ an ‘enterprise’ ” made up of a bank together with its own employees and agents. Id. at 166, 121 S.Ct. 2087 (also distinguishing facts of Discon on same basis). As it regularly does when construing the terms of the RICO statute, the Supreme Court also considered whether applying the statute and the distinctness principle to find Don King a proper RICO “person” was “consistent with the statute’s basic purposes as [the] Court has defined them.” Cedric Kushner, 533 U.S. at 164, 121 S.Ct. 2087; see Sedima v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 498, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985) (noting that RICO is to be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes”) (quoting Pub.L. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947). The history of the statute reveals that it was meant to protect the public not only from wholly illegitimate or illegal enterprises, but also from those who would use unlawful acts to victimize a legitimate enterprise and from “those who would unlawfully use a [legitimate] enterprise as a ‘vehicle’ through which ‘unlawful ... activity is committed’.... ” Cedric Kushner, 533 U.S. at 164-65, 121 S.Ct. 2087; see also Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 180-82, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993) (describing differences in other bills proposed and that which became RICO). As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put it, an individual who incorporates “gets some legal protections from the corporate form, such as limited liability; and it is just this sort of legal shield for illegal activity that RICO tries to pierce.” R.D. McCullough, II v. Suter, 757 F.2d 142, 144 (7th Cir.1985). Fictitious legal “distinctness,” such as between an individual and his corporate self, is important to RICO distinctness to the extent it bears on effectuating this historical policy, not, as Lockheed suggests, because formalities are always a sufficient basis on which to rest a finding of distinctness. Indeed, the Supreme Court distinguished the facts in Cedric Kushner from those in Discon, in which, as discussed, the Second Circuit found that despite the formal distinctness between a holding company and its subsidiaries, an association-in-fact enterprise made up of those companies was not sufficiently distinct from each company named as a RICO defendant “person.” Analysis of the facts and reasoning in Goldin II, Securitron, Discon, River-ivoods, and Cedric Kushner confirms the common-sense conclusion that Boeing is not a proper defendant “person” in this case because Boeing is not sufficiently distinct from the BTSTE despite Branch’s involvement in the BTSTE. Lockheed alleges that Branch was at all relevant times seeking a job with Boeing; that Boeing promised Branch a job, quid pro quo, if he provided Boeing with the Lockheed information that would help Boeing win the first phase of the EELV bid; and that Branch was always working “on behalf of’ Boeing. (See, e.g., Doc. 1 ¶¶ 63-70, 75, 101.) The distinctness rule may not be circumvented by Lockheed’s artful grouping into an association-in-fact of the corporation itself (Boeing), employees of the corporation (Erskine and Satehell), groups of employees of the corporation (the EKV and EELV proposal teams), and a would-be employee of the corporation (Branch), all of whom were at all relevant times allegedly working on behalf of the corporation. Not only was Branch himself not “sufficiently distinct” from Boeing during the five months before he became an actual employee, those five months did not morph the allegedly years-long BTSTE, which would otherwise clearly be a corporate enterprise indistinct from Boeing, into something separate from Boeing. Unlike the corporations named as “persons” and alleged to comprise the association-in-fact in Goldin II and Securitron, none of those alleged to make up the BTSTE ever acted independently from Boeing or the BTSTE to advance his own interests. Erskine and Satehell were employees of Boeing, and Branch was analogous to them and to the employees or agents in Riverwoods because even before he became an agent or employee of Boeing, he was always “acting on behalf of’ Boeing. Like the subsidiaries in Discon vis-a-vis their parent holding company, Branch, as a “non-employee,” was only technically distinct from Boeing. As was the case in Discon and River-woods there is an unnatural fit between the allegations against Boeing as a person and section 1962(c). Lockheed’s allegations about Boeing being “employed by” or “associated with” the alleged enterprise are like those in Riverwoods, which the Supreme Court called “odd” in Cedric Kushner, because Lockheed’s allegations speak of Boeing as “a person employed by or associated with” a group made up of Boeing employees and Branch, who was working on behalf of Boeing. There can be little doubt that the odd grouping Lockheed alleges is designed as it is for no other reason than to reach the deep pockets of Boeing. It would have been far more obvious, workable, and natural to allege that Boeing was the “enterprise” which Erskine, Satchell, and Branch conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity. There is no suggestion in this case, moreover, that endorsing an unnatural fit between the allegations and the statute or focusing on the lack of a formal employment relationship between Branch and Boeing is necessary to effectuate the special remedial purposes of RICO. Branch’s association with the BTSTE does not make Boeing, sufficiently distinct from that enterprise such that Boeing is a “person” under section 1962(c). Lockheed also argues that the allegation that the enterprise included “others unknown” to Lockheed makes the BTSTE sufficiently distinct from Boeing. It does not. The “others unknown,” first of all, are alleged to have been working on behalf of Boeing and thus furnish no more distinctness than Branch does. Secondly, while it is reasonable to infer from the Complaint that Boeing included Branch in the “EELV Proposal Team” that was said to be a part of the enterprise, the Complaint does not reasonably imply that these unknowns are alleged to be part of the enterprise. Thirdly, it would not be fair to hold that simply alleging “unknowns” is sufficient to circumvent the distinctness rule. Lockheed’s final argument for distinctness, raised for the first time at oral argument, is that the Complaint alleges that McDonnell Douglas was another entity in the “enterprise” because some of the predicate acts took place before Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas. (Tr. of Hr’g on Mot. to Dismiss at 8.) Only an extremely strained reading of the Complaint supports this argument, and Defendants cannot be said to have been on notice that Lockheed was claiming that McDonnell Douglas played a part in this enterprise. The section 1962(c) RICO claim against Boeing and the parallel state claim against Boeing under section 772.103(3) of the Florida Statutes are accordingly dismissed. 2. Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) & Section 772.103(A), Fla. Stat. The conclusion that Boeing is indistinct from the BTSTE also dictates that Lockheed’s conspiracy claims in Counts II and IV against Boeing, under section 1962(d) and section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, be dismissed. Lockheed’s claim in essence is that Boeing conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise comprised of Boeing, employees of Boeing, and Branch through a pattern of racketeering activity. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), (d). This allegation fits no more smoothly into section 1962(d) than the statement that Boeing conducted the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity fits into section 1962(c). Furthermore, if distinctness were not required for a section 1962(d) claim, plaintiffs could circumvent the distinctness rule by simply bringing conspiracy claims, which are arguably easier to allege, rather than section 1962(c) claims. Accord Sluka v. Estate of Herink, No. 94 CV 4999, 1996 WL 612462, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13,1996). Several other courts have concluded that distinctness is required for civil section 1962(d) conspiracy claims in the same way as for section 1962(c) claims. See, e.g., New Beckley Mining Corp. v. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 18 F.3d 1161, 1165 (4th Cir.1994); Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 907 (3d Cir.1991); Sluka, 1996 WL 612462, at *7. Others have held the same but on the more limited theory that a corporation only acts through its employees and agents. See, e.g., Neb. Sec. Bank v. Dain Bosworth, Inc., 838 F.Supp. 1362, 1371 (D.Neb.1993). Still others have reached the same conclusion but solely on the theory that the Copperweld antitrust intracor-porate conspiracy doctrine, which forbids finding that a conspiracy exists between a corporation and either its employees or its subsidiaries for purposes of Sherman Act conspiracy claims, applies equally to RICO conspiracy claims. See, e.g., Fogie v. THORN Americas, Inc., 190 F.3d 889, 899 (8th Cir.1999). Those courts that have allowed section 1962(d) claims to stand in cases where distinctness was an issue for companion section 1962(c) claims have done so for either one or both of two reasons. The first is that the court in question either did not address distinctness or found that plaintiffs had alleged an enterprise distinct from the corporate defendant “person.” See, e.g., Webster v. Omnitrition Int’l, 79 F.3d 776, 787 (9th Cir.1996) (declining to dismiss section 1962(d) claim, but never addressing whether there was distinctness between the alleged enterprise and the named defendant “persons”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett, 875 F.2d 1271, 1280-81 (7th Cir.1989) (declining to apply distinctness principle to section 1962(d) claims against corporate defendant because defendant “person” was distinct from the enterprise it allegedly conspired to conduct through a pattern of racketeering activity). The second reason cited by these courts for declining to dismiss section 1962(d) claims where there was an issue of distinctness is that the parties simply debated whether the Copperweld intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applied to RICO claims, and the courts in question correctly declined to apply that doctrine to RICO claims because the Copperweld doctrine applies only in the antitrust context. See, e.g., Ashland Oil, 875 F.2d at 1281 (refusing to apply Copper-weld intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to case of alleged RICO conspiracy between a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary); Webster, 79 F.3d at 787 (adopting rationale of Ashland Oil)', Bowman v. W. Auto Supply Co., 773 F.Supp. 174, 180 (W.D.Mo.1991) (adopting rationale of Ashland Oil); Mauriber v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 567 F.Supp. 1231, 1241 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (rejecting extension of Copperweld to RICO conspiracy and also noting that intracorpo-rate conspiracies are allowed in other contexts). Section 1962(d) cases in which the court did find distinctness between the defendant “person” and the enterprise do not apply. As stated above, in the instant case there is a lack of distinctness between Boeing and the BTSTE. Furthermore, the Copperweld doctrine has not been offered by Defendants as a grounds for dismissal. Lockheed’s section 1962(d) RICO claim against Boeing, and its parallel state claim against Boeing under section 772.103(4), Florida Statutes, are accordingly dismissed. The RICO and the Florida RICO Act claims in Counts I — IV against Erskine, Satchell and Branch are discussed below. C. Erskine, Satchell, & Branch: Pattern of Racketeering Activity 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) Assuming that Lockheed has sufficiently alleged “(1) the existence of an enterprise; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendants were employed by or associated with the enterprise; [and] (4) that the defendants participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise,” all of the individual Defendants challenge the allegations relating to the fifth element, “that the defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity.” United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525, 1541 (11th Cir.1995). This fifth element of a section 1962(c) claim requires allegations (a) that the defendant committed at least two of the predicate racketeering acts listed in section 1961(1); (b) that there was relatedness among the predicate acts; and (c) that the multiple predicates “amounted to, or threatened the likelihood of, continued criminal activity.” H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 237, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989); Starrett, 55 F.3d at 1542. Lockheed alleges that the individual Defendants committed several predicate acts in the categories of mail and wire fraud and receipt and use of stolen property that had traveled across state lines. (Doc. 1 ¶ 184); see 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (listing predicate acts). None of the individual Defendants argues that Lockheed attributes to him an insufficient number of predicate acts. The individual Defendants also do not argue that Lockheed has pled the predicate acts with insufficient particularity, or that the alleged acts were not related. Instead, they all argue that the allegations would not support a finding that the alleged predicate acts demonstrate continued criminal activity or a threat of continued criminal activity. (Doc. 46 at 6; Doc. 41 at 3-5; Doc. 55 at 4; Doc. 56 at 1.) The specific facts of each case determine whether a threat of continued criminal activity has been sufficiently alleged or shown. H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 242-43, 109 S.Ct. 2893. The concept of continuity may refer to either “a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.” Id. at 242, 109 S.Ct. 2893. The former period is referred to as “closed-ended continuity,” and the latter as “open-ended continuity.” See id.; Aldridge v. Lily-Tulip, Inc. Salary Retirement Plan Benefits Comm., 953 F.2d 587, 593 (11th Cir.1992). Lockheed first argues that it has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim of closed-ended continuity. A party may demonstrate closed-ended continuity “by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement.” H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. 2893. Lockheed alleges that each of the individual Defendants committed at least two predicate acts over a period of at least two years. Branch’s first alleged predicate act took place in 1996 when he transported stolen Lockheed property interstate from either Florida or Colorado to California to meet with Erskine and Alexiou. (Doc. 1 ¶ 183(i).) Between 1997 and mid-1998, Branch allegedly flew approximately forty-three times from Florida to California to transport stolen documents and spoke with Satchell over the phone about those documents. (Id. ¶¶ 182(ii)-(iii), 183(xi).) Erskine’s first alleged predicate act took place in 1996 when he transported from Colorado to California stolen Lockheed papers that Branch had given him at their first meeting. (Id. ¶ 183(i).) Throughout the course of the EELV competition and until Boeing submitted its bid in July of 1998, Erskine allegedly took receipt of stolen documents that had been transported across state lines and used them in preparing Boeing’s bid. (Id. ¶¶ 183(xii), (xiii).) Satchell’s first alleged predicate act took place “shortly after Branch began working for Boeing,” which was in early 1997 (id. ¶ 71), when Satchell and Branch began having telephone conversations about the Lockheed papers (id. ¶ 182(h)). Lockheed alleges that the phone conver