Full opinion text
OMNIBUS ORDER GOLD, District Judge. This Cause is before the Court upon the following motions: (1) Motion to Amend (DE # s 406, 407) filed on November 10, 2003 and the Corrigenda to the Motion to Amend (DE #409) filed on December 1, 2003 by Plaintiffs in Case Nos. 98-2242, 98-2243, 98-2244, 98-2245, 98-2246, 98-2247, 98-2248, 98-2249, 98-2254, 99-0336, 99-2307, 99-2308, 99-2309, 99-2310, GO-2771, 00-2772, and 00-2773 (collectively “Plaintiff-Growers”), (2) the Motion to Amend (Case No. 97-0059, DE #325) filed on March 9, 2004 by Plaintiff Mazzoni Farms (former Case No. 97-0062) and Plaintiff Jack Martin Greenhouses (former Case No. 97-0063) (collectively “Ferraro Plaintiffs”), (3) DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE # 416, filed January 13, 2004) dismissing with prejudice all settlement fraud claims and defenses, (4) DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE # 418, filed January 13, 2004) on issue of breach of settlement agreement, (5) Plaintiff-Growers’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE # 445, filed April 20, 2004), (6) Ferraro Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment (DE # s 453, 454, filed April 21, 2004) dismissing DuPont’s counterclaims, (7) Searcy Denney Growers’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE #436, filed April 19, 2004), (8) the Motions to Dismiss and Memoranda of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 99-7217, DE # s 345, 346; Case No. 99-7228, DE # s 344, 345; Case No. 99-7229, DE # s 344, 345) filed on January 27, 2004 by the Defendants in Case Nos. 99-7217, 99-7228, 99-7229 (collectively “Ferraro Defendants”), (9) the Motion to Amend Answer (Case No. 99-7038, DE # 432) filed on March 8, 2004 by the Plaintiffs in Case Nos. 99-7038, 99-7039, 99-7040, 99-7041, 99-7042, 99-7043 (collectively “Searcy Denney Growers” or “Searcy Denney”), and (10) DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant DeLuca International, Inc. (“DeLuca”) (Case No. 99-7217, DE # 366, filed April 12, 2004). United States Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton held a case management conference on February 18, 2004 and subsequently issued a Report Re: Case Management Conference (“Report”) (DE # 444, filed March 26, 2004) which set forth a schedule making the aforementioned Motions ripe by June 4, 2004. Oral Argument regarding these Motions was held on June 25, 2004. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the record, applicable statutes, and case law, the Motions to Amend the Complaints are DENIED, DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the settlement fraud claims is GRANTED, DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to breach of settlement is DENIED, the Growers’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Ferraro Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, these cases are CLOSED, and the remaining Motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Because this Omnibus Order involves several pending matters in twenty-nine different cases, I have attached as Appendix I a table of contents outlining the Order. BACKGROUND I described the background of these cases in my previous Orders in Case No. 98-2256, and those Orders are incorporated herein by reference. Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 135 F.Supp.2d. 1271 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (“Florida Evergeen I”), aff'd, Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir.2003) (“Green Leaf”); Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 165 F.Supp.2d. 1345 (S.D.Fla.2001) (“Florida Evergreen II ”), aff'd, Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir.2003). This Background also recites from the Eleventh Circuit’s decision Green Leaf affirming those Orders. After discussing these previous decisions, I will discuss the pending claims regarding the different sets of growers. Finally, I will briefly summarize portions of oral argument during which the parties provided me with further background regarding the matters that are essentially at issue in this case. I. Florida Evergreen I and II and Green Leaf In Florida Evergreen I and II and in Green Leaf, DuPont moved for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiffs in Case No. 98-2256. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a prior lawsuit filed in Florida state court in 1992, in which Plaintiffs alleged products liability based on property damage caused by DuPont’s fungicide Benlate and actual fraud claims based on DuPont’s alleged concealment of Benlate’s defects (the “Underlying Lawsuit”). In 1994, Plaintiffs settled these underlying claims and eventually dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs in Case No. 98-2256 then filed the instant action, alleging that during the course of the litigation of the Underlying Lawsuit, DuPont wrongfully, illegally, and fraudulently withheld from discovery vital scientific data and information that DuPont was under an obligation to produce in the Underlying Lawsuit and in other related Benlate litigation being conducted simultaneously in other courts, which Plaintiffs’ attorneys were monitoring, and gave false testimony in other Benlate cases about Benlate’s alleged defects. Plaintiffs alleged that DuPont withheld the information and made false statements in the implementation of a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and others who had used Benlate and suffered resulting damage. As a result of the scheme and fraud, Plaintiffs alleged that they were induced to settle the Underlying Lawsuit for less money than they would have otherwise insisted upon and been able to obtain. Although Plaintiffs accepted and kept the settlement monies, affirming the settlement agreement, they filed an action against DuPont alleging the following thirteen claims for relief: (1) fraud, (2) intentional nondisclosure of material facts, (3) fraudulent inducement to settle, (4) fraud on the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), (5) rescission and damages for fraud, (6) racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (7) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (8) conspiracy, (9) abuse of process, (10) infliction of emotional distress, (11) interference with prospective economic advantage, (12) spoliation of evidence, and (13) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. I dismissed these claims in two orders and entered judgment in favor of DuPont. I also denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint and denied the remaining Plaintiff-Growers’ Motions to Amend without Prejudice. Plaintiffs in Case No. 98-2256 appealed the two Orders separately. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed my Orders. II. Pending Motions The Motions that are pending before me involve five sets of growers: (1) Plaintiff-Growers, (2) Ferraro Plaintiffs, (3) Searcy Denney Growers, and (4) the Ferraro Defendants. I will discuss each set of growers. A. Plaintiff-Growers: Background and Pending Motions With the exception of Plaintiff-Growers who filed their complaints in 2000, Plaintiff-Growers’ First Amended Complaint contains thirteen claims for relief: (1) fraud, (2) intentional nondisclosure of material facts, (3) fraudulent inducement to settle, (4) fraud on the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), (5) rescission and damages for fraud, (6) racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (7) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (8) conspiracy, (9) abuse of process, (10) infliction of emotional distress, (11) interference with prospective economic advantage, (12) spoliation of evidence and (13) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. (Report at 8). DuPont has filed its Answers and Counterclaims against all grower Plaintiffs, asserting claims for breach of the settlement agreement, specific performance, injunctive relief, reformation, and restitution. (Id.). Plaintiff-Growers have raised numerous defenses and affirmative defenses to the Counterclaims, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, unclean hands, fraud, failure to perform excused by DuPont’s breach, waiver, estoppel, and unconsciona-bility. (Report at 8-9). All cases, except Case No. 98-2256, have pending motions for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Id.). Prior to a status conference before me on January 30, 2004, DuPont filed an initial memorandum in opposition to these motions. (Id.) Thereafter, pursuant to the direction received at that status conference, DuPont sought and was granted leave to file a supplemental response which would fully address the merits of the proposed Second Amended Complaint, addressing all issues which would be raised in a Motion to Dismiss if the Amended Complaint were permitted. (Id.). DuPont has filed Motions for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff-Growers regarding its breach of settlement counterclaim and the settlement fraud claims. (Id.). Plaintiff-Growers assert a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. B. Ferraro Plaintiffs: Background and Pending Motions Mazzoni Farms and Jack Martin Greenhouses are the only Plaintiffs remaining from the seven cases that were filed in 1997. These cases were initially filed in state court against DuPont, and were then removed to this Court. (Report at 5). Plaintiffs filed one-count Complaints alleging fraud in connection with the settlement of their underlying claims with DuPont (Id.). DuPont answered these Complaints, and DuPont filed a two-count counterclaim for breach of the settlement agreement and restitution. (Id.). Plaintiffs replied, asserting that the counterclaims are barred by fraud, fraud in the inducement, misrepresentation, failure to bargain in good faith and duress in formation of the settlement. (Id.). Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaints. DuPont has filed Motions for Summary Judgment regarding breach of the settlement agreement and fraud in these cases. Ferraro Plaintiffs assert their own Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. C. Searcy Denney Growers: Background and Pending Motions In the remaining cases, DuPont has filed First Amended Complaints which contain two counts alleging Breach of Settlement Agreement (Count 1) and Restitution (Count 2). (Report at 11). The defendants in these cases are growers who have filed cases in state court similar to the complaints pending in federal court in the groups described above. (Id.). These growers were all represented by the Malone firm in their underlying lawsuits. (Id.). Searcy Denney Growers have filed Answers which raise the following defenses: this matter should be stayed pending resolution of the state cases; there was no release of these claims; there was no contemplation or consideration of release of these claims; there is no cognizable claim for restitution, and estoppel prevents these claims. (Id.). Counsel for the Searcy Denney Growers specifically advised Magistrate Judge Simonton that there is no fraud defense asserted, nor does he intend to assert one. (Id. at 11-12). The following motions are pending with respect to these growers. Searcy Denney has filed a Motion to Amend Answer. DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding breach of settlement is pending. There is no fraud defense raised in any of these cases, and therefore the parties agree that DuPont’s motion for summary judgment regarding fraud claims and defenses does not pertain to any of these growers. (Id.). Searcy Denney has filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. D. Ferraro Defendants: Background and Pending Motions The last group consists of three cases in which the defendant growers are represented by the Ferraro law firm: Case Nos. 99-7217, 99-7228, and 99-7229. Ferraro Defendants have not yet filed answers to DuPont’s Complaints, but have filed Motions to Dismiss. DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on breach of settlement is pending with respect to the above eases. Due to the pendency of the Motions to Dismiss, Ferraro Defendants have not asserted a fraud defense in these cases. Accordingly, DuPont agrees that its Motion for Summary Judgment as to fraud defenses does not pertain to these cases. (Report at 13). If the motions to dismiss are denied, however, and a fraud-based defense is asserted, then DuPont intends to file such a motion. (Id.). III. Oral Argument I will briefly review the portions of oral argument during which the parties provided further background of these cases and discussed the matters that are essentially at issue here. I will refer to relevant sections of DuPont’s Post-Hearing Brief (DE # 471, filed July 2, 2004, at Exh. B) as I summarize the June 25, 2004 oral argument. Oral argument began with the issue of damages. I asked DuPont to specify what damages it seeks with regards to its breach of contract and equitable claims. DuPont responded by abandoning its equitable claims. It explained that it is not proceeding on these claims, such as restitution, which would request that I exercise my equitable power to refund to DuPont the amount paid to the growers pursuant to the settlement agreements. (Transcript at 5). This approach would have required that Growers return the money that they received for agreeing to cease the underlying actions against DuPont. Because DuPont has abandoned its equitable claims, its only remaining claim, and in some cases, counterclaim, is for breach of settlement. DuPont stated that if it were to win on this claim, and the issue of damages proceeded to trial, DuPont would forego any right to recover damages beyond nominal compensatory damages from a jury. (Transcript at 9; DuPont’s Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Brief, DE # 471, filed July 2, 2004, at ¶ 2). DuPont further explained that in the event Growers continued asserting state court claims despite a judgment granting the Motion for Summary Judgement as to breach of settlement, DuPont would seek a “relitigation injunction” from me, enjoining growers from pursuing parallel Florida state court cases. (Id.). I questioned DuPont regarding its course of action if its Motion for Summary Judgment as to breach of settlement is denied. (Transcript at 9-12). DuPont acknowledged that if its Motion were denied, the individual growers’ cases would each proceed to trial. During this trial, the growers would necessarily present evidence of DuPont’s alleged fraud and misconduct in order to explain that their fraudulent inducement claims were not unfounded. DuPont, in turn, would present evidence that it was accused of committing fraud during the underlying action in order to show that the growers contemplated fraud claims before or during settlement. These trials would involve numerous questions of material fact for each grower that a jury would have to resolve in order to determine whether each grower breached the settlement agreements. If the jury decided for DuPont on the issue of breach, the jury would then have to determine damages. DuPont would already be entitled to litigation costs as the prevailing party, and if the issue of attorney’s fees were to be resolved upon a post-trial motion before me, the only type of damages left for the jury to consider would be compensatory damages. (Transcript at 8-9). DuPont stated during oral argument that it is not actually seeking compensatory damages from the jury. (Transcript at 10-11). Rather, it would only seek one dollar of compensatory damages from the jury, so that it could proceed to seek attorney’s fees post-trial from me. (Transcript at 10-11). Dupont admitted that in the event the jury grants nominal compensatory damages despite hearing evidence of DuPont’s alleged fraud and misconduct, and the issue of attorney’s fees proceeds before me, in addressing this issue I would be able to consider that the Eleventh Circuit “do[es] not sanction DuPont’s alleged conduct and note[s] that other penalties exist for such dishonest actions.” (Transcript at 11-12 (citing Green Leaf, 341 F.3d at 1310)). DuPont later argued, however, that pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the language of the settlement agreements, I would not be permitted to determine the amount of attorney’s fees. (Transcript at 92-93). Federal Rule 54(d)(2)(A) provides, “Claims for attorneys’ fees and related nontaxable expenses shall be made by motion unless the substantive law governing the action provides for the recovery of such fees as an element of damages to be proved at trial.” DuPont argues that it is seeking attorney’s fees as an element of compensatory damages for breach of contract. The contract, or the settlement agreement, provides for attorneys’ fees in paragraph six of the typical release. (See Second Declaration of Ronald L. Raider Part I, DE #427, filed January 13, 2003, at Release, Indemnity and Assignment ¶ 6). Paragraph 6 explains that a breach of the release would entitle DuPont to recover not only the amount of any judgment which may be awarded, “but also court costs, attorney’s fees, and all other costs and expenses, taxable or otherwise (Id.). Thus, concludes DuPont, the jury would determine whether to award attorney’s fees rather than me. I am not ruling on who determines the amount of attorneys’ fees. The parties did not fully brief this issue, and it is not relevant to my ruling. I am merely explaining that a jury would necessarily hear evidence regarding DuPont’s alleged misconduct before being able to determine what, if any, damages DuPont would receive. I am further explaining that if a motion for attorneys’ fees were before me in the future, I would be permitted to consider this evidence, particularly in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s disapproval of DuPont’s alleged misconduct, if proven. As I explain in Part III, infra, however, I conclude that the contract has not been breached, so the issue of attorney’s fees will not be before the jury or me in the future. LEGAL STANDARD The following types of Motions are discussed in this Order: (1) Motions to Amend, (2) Motions for Summary Judgment, and (3) Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, I will review the standards that govern each type of Motion. I. Motions to Amend When the time period for filing an amendment of a pleading as of right has expired, Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that amendment may be provided “only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) states that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Eleventh Circuit has held that motions for leave to amend complaints should be liberally granted when necessary in the interests of justice. See Jennings v. BIC Corp., 181 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that “leave to amend should be liberally granted when necessary in the interest of justice” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir.1996) (“Unless substantial reason exists to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.”), citing Shipner v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir.1989). II. Motions for Summary Judgment Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment when the pleadings and supporting materials show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The court’s focus in reviewing a motion for summary judgment is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997). The moving party has the burden to establish the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d at 646. Once the moving party has established the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, to which the nonmoving party bears the burden at trial, it is up to the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Issues of fact are genuine only if a reasonable jury, considering the evidence presented could find for the nonmoving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-51, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11. In determining whether to grant summary judgment, the district court must remember that, “credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Id. 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513. III. Motions to Dismiss The Ferraro Defendants in Case No. 99-7217 have moved for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Ferraro Defendants in Case Nos. 99-7228 and 99-7228 have raised virtually identical arguments for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and have also argued that venue is improper. To warrant dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it must be “clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods., 294 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir.2002) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)), reh’g denied, 54 Fed.Appx. 493 (11th Cir.2002). Determining the propriety of granting a motion to dismiss requires courts to accept all the factual allegations in the complaint as true and to evaluate all inferences derived from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hoffend v. Villa, 261 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir.2001) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1112, 122 S.Ct. 2328, 153 L.Ed.2d 159 (2002). “[Ujnless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief,” the complaint should not be dismissed on grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, 144 F.3d 732, 736 (11th Cir.1998) (citation omitted), reh’g denied, 189 F.3d 487 (11th Cir.1999). Nevertheless, “to survive a motion to dismiss, [a] plaintiff must do more than merely label his claims.” Excess Risk Underwriters, Inc. v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 208 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1313 (S.D.Fla.2002) (citation omitted). Moreover, when on the basis of a dispositive issue of law no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action, dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. Id.,citing Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir.1993). 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) governs venue in civil actions where jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship. These types of actions may be brought in the following courts: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). ANALYSIS Applying these well-established principles to these cases leads me to (1) deny the Motions to Amend the Complaints, (2) grant DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all fraud claims, (3) deny DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to breach of settlement and grant the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment against DuPont, (4) grant Ferraro Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and (5) deny as moot any remaining motions and close this case. I. Plaintiff-Growers’ and Ferraro Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend Plaintiff-Growers’ and Ferraro Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend seek to file virtually identical proposed Second Amended Complaints. (See Plaintiff-Growers’ Corrigenda to the Motion to Amend, DE # 409, filed December 1, 2003, at Exhs. 5, 6; Ferraro Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint, Case No. 97-0059, DE # 329, filed March 9, 2004, at Exh. 5). I must examine these Motions before resolving other matters in this consolidated action because if the Motions are granted, Plaintiff-Growers and Ferraro Plaintiffs will have a new set of claims which may moot or change my analysis of other pending motions, such as DuPont’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all existing claims. As I explain in this section, however, I am denying the Motions to Amend, and accordingly, the remaining pending motions will not be affected. A. Plaintiff-Growers’ Motion to Amend Plaintiff-Growers filed a Motion to Amend (Case No. 98-2242, DE # 406, filed November 10, 2003) and a Corrigenda to the Motion to Amend (DE # 409, filed December 1, 2003). DuPont filed its Opposition (DE # 415, filed January 6, 2004). At a status conference held before me on January 30, 2004, DuPont was instructed to include in its opposition any arguments it would make in a motion to dismiss the proposed amended complaints. Accordingly, DuPont filed a Supplemental Opposition (DE #442, filed March 12, 2004). Plaintiff-Growers filed their Reply to DuPont’s Mehiorandum and Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff-Growers’ Motion to Amend Complaints (DE # 447, filed April 20, 2004). DuPont was ordered to file a Sur-Reply (Order, DE # 468, filed June 9, 2004), and it did so on June 18, 2004 (Sur-Reply, DE #469). Plaintiff-Growers have submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint for the Plaintiff-Growers represented in the underlying lawsuit by Kevin A. Malone, Esq. (Corrigenda to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at Exhibit 5 ¶ 20) and a proposed Second Amended Complaint for the Plaintiff-Growers represented in the underlying lawsuit by the law firm of Sheehe & Ven-dittelli (Id. at Exhibit 6 ¶ 20). Both proposed Second Amended Complaints assert the same eleven causes of action: (1) Count I for Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices (“Florida civil RICO” or “Florida RICO”) violations, (2) Count II for conspiring to violate Florida civil RICO, (3) Count III for fraudulent concealment, (4) Count IV for intentional nondisclosure of a material fact, (5) Count V for fraudulent inducement to settle, (6) Count VI for fraud on the court in an independent action, (7) Count VII for civil conspiracy, (8) Count VIII for abuse of process, (9) Count IX for spoliation of evidence, (10) Count X for federal racketeering violations, and (11) Count XI for conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). With the exception of the two Florida RICO claims, these claims are essentially the same claims on which judgement has been entered for DuPont in Case No. 98-2256. Plaintiffs fail to explain why these proposed claims could not have been alleged when these actions were filed in 1998, 1999, and 2000, or why these claims are viable despite the rulings in Case No.-98-2256. Based upon my own review, I deny the Motion to Amend as untimely and futile. (1) Timeliness A district court may exercise its discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend for “any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); see also Maynard v. Board of Regents of the Division of Universities of the Florida Dep’t of Education, 342 F.3d 1281, 1287 (11th Cir.2003) (“Although leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, a motion to amend may be denied on numerous grounds such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the amendment.” (quotations omitted)). Consistent with Foman’s recognition that leave to amend can be denied for “undue delay,” the. Eleventh Circuit has upheld decisions by district courts denying leave to amend when the movant did not show good cause for a significant delay. E.g., Maynard, 342 F.3d at 1287 (affirming denial of motion for leave to amend when there was “no good reason why [the plaintiff] could not have made the motion earlier” and the movant had not explained its failure to include the amended claim in its original filing); Brewer-Giorgio v. Producers Video, Inc., 216 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir.2000) (affirming denial of motion for leave to amend filed over a year after commencement of action when movant “failed to demonstrate good cause for that delay”); Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.1998) (same). In rulings binding on this court, the Fifth Circuit has recognized specifically that leave to amend may be denied when the district court has ruled upon a dispositive motion, because “[a] busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim.” Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459, 469-70 (5th Cir.1967); see also Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 202-03 (5th Cir. Jan.12, 1981) (applying Freeman and affirming denial of leave to amend sought after motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment had been taken under submission). I have recognized under other circumstances that leave to amend need not be granted when “the parties and the Court have already expended considerable time and resources” litigating prior claims. Dannebrog Rederi AS v. M/V TRUE DREAM, 146 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1316-17 (S.D.Fla.2001). As I explain below, Plaintiff-Growers’ actions have been pending for, in some cases, as long as five years. During that time, extensive proceedings regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ existing claims have already taken place before this Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the state supreme courts of Florida and Delaware. Plaintiffs could and should have made any necessary amendments to their pleadings years ago, before this Court and DuPont expended enormous time and effort in addressing the merits of the claims asserted originally- Plaintiff-Growers filed their First Amended Complaints on October 22, 1998 (Case Nos. 98-2242, 98-2243, 98-2244, 98-2245, 98-2246, 99-2247, 99-2248, 98-2249, 99-2254) and Complaints on February 4, 1999 (Case No. 99-0336), August 19, 1999 (Case Nos. 99-2307, 99-2308, 99-2309, 99-2310), and July 31, 2000 (Case Nos. 00-2771, 00-2772, 00-2773). Plaintiff-Growers moved to amend these Complaints more than one year later, on August 1, 2001, two days prior to the scheduled oral argument on DuPont’s motions for judgment on the pleadings in Case No. 98-2256. (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend, DE # s 278, 279, filed on August 1, 2001). The proposed Second Amended Complaints contained 207 allegations and sought relief in the form of eleven counts, collateral estoppel, and punitive damages. (Id. at Exhs. 1, 2). After these Motions were denied as moot in Florida Evergreen I, Plaintiff-Growers filed another Motion to Amend (DE #406) and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend (DE #407) on November 10, 2003, this time proposing amended complaints consisting of two counts alleging violations of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. Plaintiff-Growers later filed a “Corrigenda” to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend First Amended Complaints (DE #409) which purported to be “identical to the original memorandum ... with the exception of the substitution of two exhibits, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6, in place of the original Exhibit 5 and original Exhibit 6 filed with the original memorandum.” (Corrigenda at 1). Exhibits 5 and 6 are actually the proposed Second Amended Complaints, and these proposed complaints present yet a different set of claims than the proposed complaints filed a month earlier. Instead of only including two counts for relief, the latest proposed complaints include 98 allegations and consist of the two Florida RICO Counts and nine other Counts. Thus, Plaintiff-Growers have waited at least three years, and in some cases more than five years, to file amended complaints in the form attached to their latest Motion to Amend. Plaintiff-Growers could not offer valid reasons for their delay, either in their briefs or during oral argument. Plaintiff-Growers do not argue that the amendments reflect facts which they did not know when they filed their prior pleadings; rather, they acknowledge that “[t]he factual scenario upon which all causes of action are based has not changed.” (Corrigenda at 4). Plaintiff-Growers make the following arguments in support of their Motion: (1) recent decisions such as Green Leaf have clearly defined the different causes of action available for the alleged facts, (2) Florida state courts have allowed Florida RICO claims to go to the jury, (3) the cases are still in the pleading stage, and (4) DuPont will not be prejudiced if the amendments are allowed. Each of these arguments is without merit. First, the amendments in the proposed complaints cannot have logically evolved from the Green Leaf decision. That decision affirmed my Orders entering judgment on the pleadings in favor of DuPont on claims that are substantially similar to the claims Plaintiff-Growers seek to include in their Second Amended Complaints. See supra Background, Part I. Thus, despite the argument that Plaintiff-Growers seek to amend their' complaints based on guidance from Green Leaf, they propose the very claims the Eleventh Circuit denied in that opinion. Second, the Florida state cases on which Plaintiff-Growers rely to support their Florida RICO amendments actually resulted in a directed verdict for DuPont on the Florida RICO claims. (Corrigenda at Exh. 1). Plaintiff-Growers argue that in these cases, a Florida jury returned verdicts in favor of other growers asserting Florida RICO claims against DuPont. Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge, however, that the trial court set aside these verdicts and directed a verdict in favor of DuPont on these claims. (Id.)- The directed verdict was recently affirmed on appeal. See Palmas Y Bambu v. Dupont, 881 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). Further, the rulings against DuPont were reversed. Id. Plaintiff-Growers proposed allegations do not cure the defects that resulted in a directed verdict for DuPont in the state cases. It is not logical for Plaintiff-Growers to argue that they now seek to add claims based on recent decisions which have concluded that those claims do not have merit. Further, Plaintiff-Growers acknowledge in their Reply that the federal and Florida racketeering acts are similar and thus adding Florida RICO claims will not materially change the nature of this litigation. (Reply at 10). This argument begs a question Plaintiff-Growers could not answer in their briefs or during oral argument, namely, if the facts and arguments for the federal and Florida RICO claims are the same, why did Plaintiff-Growers fail to assert the Florida RICO claims from the inception of these cases? Third, these cases are not in the early stages that Plaintiff-Growers represents they are. Plaintiff-Growers argue that these cases are in the pleading stages, and that the Motion to Amend was timely when filed in August 2001 and timely when renewed in November 2003. (Reply at 2). As noted above, the “renewed” Motion actually sought to file amended complaints that were different from the complaints proposed in August 2001, and the Plaintiff-Growers filed yet another proposed amended complaint in December 2003. Further, these amendments have been proposed five years after the first of these cases began, after questions have been certified to two courts, after motions to dismiss have been resolved, after I have issued two lengthy Orders on motions for judgment on the pleadings in one of these cases, and after the Eleventh Circuit affirmed my Orders. To argue that this consolidated action is in the early stages grossly misrepresents the proceedings that have been underway in this case for the past five years. The fact that there has been substantial progress in the consolidated case undercuts Plaintiff-Growers’ remaining argument, that DuPont will not suffer prejudice if the Motion to Amend is granted. As DuPont stated in oral argument, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 explains that the scope and purposes of the Federal Rules is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” (Transcript at 55-56, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 1). According to DuPont, Plaintiff-Growers’ Motion to Amend represents an attempt to undermine this purpose and maintain this case in federal court until the Searcy Denney Growers can argue these cases in state court and, hopefully for Growers, produce a different result than the Eleventh Circuit case. (Transcript at 56). The prejudice to DuPont results from the prejudice to the justice system itself. Failing to raise these issues previously kept the issues from being resolved along with the other issues. This failure places the DuPont, the Eleventh Circuit, and myself in a position where issues in this case are being resolved in a piecemeal fashion with no logical conclusion. It would be a detriment to the system to proceed in this piecemeal manner. Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Plaintiff-Growers’ Motion to Amend is untimely. The Motion is therefore denied. (2) Futility In addition to being untimely, Plaintiff-Growers’ Motion to Amend is denied for another reason: the proposed claims are futile because they would not survive a motion to dismiss. After briefly providing a background regarding the differences between these cases and Case No. 98-2256, I will address Plaintiff-Growers’ Florida RICO counts, and then I will examine the remaining proposed claims. (a) General Factual Background As I explained in the Background section, supra, my two previous Orders and the Eleventh Circuit opinion in this case involved Plaintiff-Growers in Case No. 98-2256. Those Plaintiff-Growers were chosen as Growers whose claims were representative of the seventeen remaining Plaintiff-Growers’ claims. Nevertheless, accepting the allegations in the proposed Second Amended Complaint as true, as I am required to do when considering the viability or futility of the amendments under a motion to dismiss standard, there are some factual differences between the cases that Plaintiff-Growers have emphasized. Specifically, Plaintiff-Growers represented by Sheehe & Vendittelli were involved in the following cases: Fred Henry’s Petals of Paradise and KHD, Ltd. (see, e.g., Second Amended Complaint, Exh. 5 ¶ 23), and Plaintiff-Growers represented by Malone were involved in the Anthony & Sons trial (see, e.g., Second Amended Complaint, Exh. 6 ¶23). Some of the alleged predicate racketeering acts occurred during these cases. (See Second Amended Complaints). Thus, if the only ground for dismissal of the fraud claims were that the Plaintiff-Growers have not alleged a direct enough injury, see infra Part I.A(2)(b)(iv), the proposed amendments might not have been denied as futile. As explained below, however, alleging a direct injury is not enough to overcome the defects in each of Plaintiff-Growers’ proposed claims. (b) Florida RICO Counts Plaintiff-Growers’ proposed amendments include claims that DuPont violated the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. This Act, Florida Statutes § 772.101 et seq., is patterned after the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and Florida courts often look to federal courts’ interpretation of the federal statutes for guidance and as persuasive authority. See Lugo v. State, 845 So.2d 74, 96 n. 39 (Fla.2003) (“Flori-da['s] RICO statute, section 895.03, Florida Statutes (1993), is patterned after its federal counterpart [and] Florida courts may look to federal RICO decisions as persuasive authority”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 320, 157 L.Ed.2d 216 (2003); Gross v. State, 765 So.2d 39, 42 (Fla.2000) (“[G]iven the similarity of the state and federal [RICO] statues, Florida courts have looked to the federal courts for guidance in construing RICO provisions.”) (citations omitted), cert. denied 532 U.S. 948, 121 S.Ct. 1416, 149 L.Ed.2d 357 (2001); Jackson v. Bell-South Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.2004) (“We have explained that the interpretation of Florida’s RICO law ‘is informed by the case law interpreting the federal RICO statute ... on which Chapter 772 is patterned.’ ”) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, I will examine cases interpreting the Florida and federal RICO to assess whether the proposed Counts are futile. Plaintiff-Growers allege that DuPont engaged in criminal activity actionable pursuant to Florida Statutes § 772.103(3), which provides that it is unlawful for any person “[e]mployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.” (Corrigenda Exh. 5, Count I; Exh. 6, Count I). A “pattern of criminal activity” is defined as “engaging in at least two incidents of criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics that are not isolated incidents.” Fla. Stats. § 772.102(4). Plaintiff-Growers seek to allege that “DuPont, the law firm of Alston & Bird, Dow N. Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Gilley, Todd David, Edgar Woolard, Timothy Obrigawiteh, Bruce Hadley, George Frank, Nicholas Albergo, the Burke Cabaniss law firm, Thomas Burk, the Popham Haik law firm, ALTA labs, Robert Bethem, and/or others” were part of an enterprise whose intent was to defraud all Benlate product liability claimants. (Corrigenda Exh. 5, Count I and Exh. 6, Count I). The predicate acts, or incidents of criminal activity, allegedly include multiple acts of (1) organized fraud and communications fraud in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 817.034(4)(a) and 817.034(4)(b), (2) false affidavit perjury in violation of Florida Statutes § 322.33, perjury in official proceedings and by contradictory statements in violation of Florida Statues §§ 837.02 and 837.021, (3) tampering with witnesses in violation of Florida Statutes § 914.22, (4) tampering with or fabricating physical evidence in violation of Florida Statutes § 918.13, (5) mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, (6) obstructing justice in federal courts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, (7) tampering with witnesses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, (8) tampering with or fabricating physical evidence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), and (9) racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B). (Id.). Plaintiff-Growers’ proposed Count II alleges that DuPont violated § 772.103(4), which prohibits any person from conspiring to violate § 772.103(3). DuPont argues that the proposed Florida RICO claims would be futile for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff-Growers have failed to allege an “enterprise” for FCPA purposes, (2) most of these allegations are based on fraud, for which Plaintiff-Growers cannot state a claim because they cannot meet the reasonable reliance requirement, (3) Plaintiff-Growers’ RICO case statement is based on alleged criminal activity in the Bush Ranch case, where Plaintiff-Growers were not parties, (4) litigation immunity bars the allegations based on activity in litigation proceedings, and (5) Plaintiff-Growers have failed to plead fraud with specificity. (See DuPont’s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaints, DE# 415, filed January 6, 2004; DuPont’s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaints, DE # 442, filed March 12, 2004). After briefly discussing the law of the case doctrine as it relates to the proposed amendments, I will address each of these arguments in turn. (i) Law of the Case Doctrine DuPont urges me to focus on a footnote in Green Leaf suggesting that Florida RICO claims would be futile. See Green Leaf, 341 F.3d at 1309 n. 17 (“Additionally, Plaintiffs’ proposed Florida RICO claims were futile, for the same reasons supporting the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims”), citing O’Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla.3d D.C.A.1992) (relying on federal RICO caselaw in affirming the dismissal of Florida civil RICO claims on the ground that “indirect injury” is not sufficient to confer standing under Florida RICO). This language, however, does not necessarily preclude the RICO claims because it is not a part of “the law of the case” in Case No. 98-2256 and is not binding precedent in the remaining cases. The law of the case “doctrine provides that ‘when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.’ ” Murphy v. F.D.I.C., 208 F.3d 959, 965 (11th Cir.2000), citing Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). According to this doctrine, an appellate court’s decision of a legal issue must be followed in all subsequent trial or intermediate appellate proceedings in the same case, unless “(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to [the contested] issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.” Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1003 (11th Cir.1997), citing DeLong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corp., 990 F.2d 1186, 1196 (11th Cir.1993); Barber v. International Bhd. of Boilermakers, Dist. Lodge # 57, 841 F.2d 1067, 1072 (11th Cir.1988). However, in order for the law of the case doctrine to apply, the issue contested on the latter appeal must be the same issue that was contested on and decided by the former appeal. Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1003 (11th Cir.1997), citing Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 512-13 (11th Cir.1996) (concluding that law of the case doctrine did not preclude later appeal where, inter alia, the focus of the former appeal was on a different issue). Similarly, if a contested issue is not an issue the Eleventh Circuit decided, the Eleventh Circuit’s statements regarding the issue must be analyzed to determine whether they are binding precedent or merely dicta. The Eleventh Circuit mentioned Florida RICO while it was discussing the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend in Case No. 99-2256. See Green Leaf, 341 F.3d at 1309 n. 17. It affirmed my denial of the Motion because the Plaintiffs had filed a Notice of Appeal, thus divesting me of jurisdiction. Id. at 1309. After discussing my reason for denying the Motion, it noted that the proposed Florida RICO claims “were futile.” Id. It appears that the court was simply stating my reasons for denying the Motion to Amend when it discussed the Florida RICO claim. These statements are dicta because the issue before the court was whether I had jurisdiction to hear Case No. 98-2256 Plaintiffs Motion to Amend, not whether the remaining Motions to Amend were futile. Because the Eleventh Circuit did not actually decide that the Florida RICO claims were futile, I conclude that this is not the law of the case or binding precedent. I also note that DuPont admitted at oral argument that these statements do not form the law of the case. (Transcript at 53-54). Accordingly, I cannot rely on the Eleventh Circuit’s comment that proposed Florida RICO claims would be futile. I must instead examine the proposed claims to determine whether they would survive a motion to dismiss. (ii) Enterprise DuPont argues that the proposed RICO amendments would be futile because Plaintiff-Growers fail to allege a RICO enterprise that is separate and distinct from DuPont itself. DuPont states that the single fact that Plaintiff-Growers have not alleged a distinct RICO enterprise warrants dismissal of the RICO claims whether or not Plaintiff-Growers have sufficiently alleged the remaining elements of a RICO claim. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that DuPont is correct. The relevant Florida RICO provision makes it unlawful for any person “[ejmployed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.” Fla. Stat. § 772.103(3). Thus, for a “person” to be liable under RICO, it must be shown that the person was employed by, or associated with a distinct enterprise “that is not simply the same ‘person’ referred to by a different name.” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 161, 121 S.Ct. 2087, 150 L.Ed.2d 198 (2001) (“In ordinary English one speaks of employing, being employed by, or associating with others, not oneself.”). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO “enterprise” that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violation. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981); Gross v. State, 765 So.2d 39, 43 (Fla.2000) (adopting Turkette as a matter of Florida RICO law); see also U.S. v. Goldin Indus., Inc., 219 F.3d 1268, 1270-71 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (ruling that the “plain language” of RICO requires that the “enterprise” be “separate and distinct” from the “person” who is the defendant), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1015, 121 S.Ct. 573, 148 L.Ed.2d 491 (2001). Thus, there is a “distinctiveness” requirement for RICO enterprises. In another DuPont case, a Florida appellate court recently affirmed a directed verdict for DuPont on the plaintiffs’ RICO claims. Palmas Y Bambu v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 881 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2004). In that case, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court’s rulings. The plaintiffs in Palmas Y Bambu alleged a RICO enterprise consisting of DuPont, its officers, directors and employees, its outside counsel Thomas Burke, and his law firm Cabin-iss & Burke. Id. at 574 n. 6. The court explained as follows: 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 itself. Thus, where employees of a corporation associate together to commit a pattern of predicate acts in the course of their employment and on behalf of the corporation, the employees in association with the corporation do not form an enterprise distinct from the corporation. Id. at 573, citing Riverwoods Chappaqua Carp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir.1994) (citations omitted) (affirming dismissal of a civil RICO action alleging that a bank via its employees had used extortion and mail fraud to coerce borrowers into restructuring their loans) (further citations omitted). The court concluded that “no distinctness exists because the distinctness requirement cannot be circumvented by ‘alleging a RICO enterprise that consists merely of a corporate defendant [person] associated with its own employees or agents carrying on. the regular affairs of the defendant.’ ” Id. at 573 (citations omitted). Plaintiff-Growers in this case allege the following RICO enterprise: DuPont, the law firm of Alston & Bird, Dow N. Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Gilley, Todd David, Edgar Woolard, Timothy Obrigawitch, Bruce Hadley, George Frank, Nicholas Albergo, the Burke Cabaniss law firm, Thomas Burke, the Pophaim law firm, ALTA Labs, Robert Bethem, and/or others.... (Corrigenda at Exh. 5 ¶ 39, Exh. 6 at ¶ 39). According to Plaintiff-Growers’ Local Rule 12.1 First Supplemental Civil RICO Case Statement (DE # 262), which Plaintiff-Growers expressly incorporate by reference (Corrigenda at Exh. 5 ¶ 9, Exh. 6 ¶ 9), each and every one of the listed parties is or was a DuPont employee or agent. Alston & Bird and its attorneys Dow N. Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Gilley and Todd David served as DuPont’s counsel during the Bush Ranch trial in 1993. (RICO Case Statement at 27, 31, and 32). The RICO Case Statement refers to Timothy Obrigawiteh as a “DuPont employee” (see, e.g., id. at 9), Bruce Hadley as “DuPont’s Bruce Hadley” (id. at 12), George Frank as DuPont’s corporate counsel (id. at 31), and Nicholas Albergo as a consultant for DuPont’s attorneys (id. at 43). Cabaniss, Burke & Wagner served as DuPont’s National Coordinating Counsel for Benlate litigation in September 1992, and Thomas Burke was one of the partners primarily responsible for Benlate litigation. (Id. at 11). The law firm of Popham, Haik represented DuPont, as shown by the allegation that Individuals who performed services for DuPont sent their invoices to Pophaim, Haik lawyers. (Id. at 8, 9). Alta Labs, and its employee Robert Beth-em (id. at 28, 34), were retained by DuPont to analyze soils (id. at 33) and are also referred to as consultants for DuPont’s attorneys (id. at 43). Edgar Woo-lard is the former president and CEO of DuPont. Plaintiff-Growers’ reference to “and/or others” as part of the RICO enterprise does not meet basic notice pleading requirements. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (requiring Complaint to set forth a statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief). Accordingly, Plaintiff-Growers have failed to allege RICO claims involving a distinct enterprise. This failure is sufficient in and of itself to deny the proposed Florida RICO claims as futile. (Hi) Reasonable Reliance: Organized and Communications Fraud and Mail and Wire Fraud Two of the incidents Plaintiff-Growers seek to allege as part of a pattern of criminal activity are organized fraud and communications fraud in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 817.034(4)(a) and 817.034(4)(b), and mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. DuPont argues that these incidents should be dismissed for a failure to meet proximate cause and reasonable reliance requirements just as they were in Case No. 98-2256. Plaintiff-Growers do not respond to these arguments in their Reply. They did, however, state during oral argument that reasonable reliance is not an element of the type of fraud which they are alleging. (Transcript at 66). Plaintiff-Growers argue that they are alleging “negative fraud” such as concealment and destruction of evidence, which do not require a showing of reasonable reliance. (Id,.). DuPont pointed out during oral argument that RICO still requires that the plaintiff link the damages suffered to the conduct alleged to form the predicate act. (Transcript at 80). Florida Statute § 772.104 allows a person to bring a civil RICO claim if “he has been injured by reason of’ any RICO violation. See also 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (allowing people injured “by reason of a violation” of the RICO statutes to bring a RICO claim); Holmes v. Sec. Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 1317-18, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (explaining that Section 1964(c) requires a showing of proximate cause). And as I explained in my previous Orders and as I summarize below, under Florida law, Plaintiff-Growers must allege reasonable reliance in order to meet proximate cause requirements with respect to their RICO fraud claims. Plaintiff-Growers, however, cannot sufficiently make this allegation for the same reason Plaintiffs in Case No. 98-2256 could not sufficiently allege reasonable requirement: based on the history and circumstances of this litigation, and because of the controversies and accusations involving DuPont that have been made for years, it is not reasonable for Plaintiff-Growers to rely on DuPont’s representations in the course of settlement negotiations. Further, as DuPont stated during oral argument, “Because their reliance is not reasonable, it is considered as though they inflicted this settlement on themselves. If they relied on something that it was unreasonable for them to do, they made the decision. They broke the chain of causation, and there is no ability on their part to prove that they suffered injury by reason of the [predicate acts].” (Transcript at 82). I have already dismissed similar RICO fraud claims, and these dismissals have been affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. My previous decisions regarding fraud were based on state law precedents on fraud law, such as Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir.1999), to inform the disposition of federal civil RICO claims. Id. (relying on Florida state law). Further, as I have already explained, the Florida RICO statutes are patterned after the federal RICO, and Florida courts often look to the federal Act as persuasive authority on Florida’s RICO. Thus, I will use the same standards in assessing the viability of Plaintiff-Growers’ organized and communications fraud claims, which allege state law violations (see Florida Statute § 817.034(b)), and mail and wire fraud claims, which allege federal law violations. As I explained in Florida Evergreen II, in order to establish proximate causation in a civil RICO action predicated on fraud, the purported victim must make the same showing of reasonable reliance that is required for establishing injury from common law fraud. Florida Evergeen II, 165 F.Supp.2d at 1351-1352, citing Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1499 (11th Cir.1991) (“Mail and wire fraud, just like common law fraud, ... entail ‘an intention to induce the [victim] to act or to refrain from action in reliance upon the misrepresentation.’ ”) (further citations omitted). My earlier Orders granted DuPont’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Plaintiffs’ inability to establish reasonable reliance, finding that Plaintiffs’ fraud claims failed as a matter of law. See id. at 1351-1354. Those Orders relied primarily on Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir.1999) and its progeny for the proposition that, “when negotiating or attempting to compromise an existing controversy over fraud and dishonesty it is unreasonable to rely on representations made by the allegedly dishonest party.” Mergens, 166 F.3d at 1118 (quoting Pettinelli v. Danzig, 722 F.2d 706, 710 (11th Cir.1984)). The Mergens decision represents the straightforward application of the reasonable reliance requirement to a particular factual setting: a setting in which the plaintiffs were sophisticated actors, the parties had been in an adversarial relationship since well before the execution of the agreement at issue, and the plaintiffs had entered into the agreement to settle an existing lawsuit that claimed fraud. See Mergens, 166 F.3d at 1118. The Eleventh Circuit found that in such a situation, a party has no legal right to rely on the representations of the other party, and that such a finding is consistent with the applicable precedent. See id. (“In factual situations substantially similar to this action, this Circuit and various district courts have held that the plaintiffs were unjustified in relying on representations made by the defendants.”). I concluded that the Plaintiffs in Case No. 98-2256 could not establish, as a matter of law, justifiable rebanee with respect to Plaintiffs’ fraud in the inducement claims and mail and wire fraud claims. According to the proposed amended complaints, Plaintiff-Growers in these case were just as sophisticated as the growers in Case No. 98-2256. They were represented by counsel and those counsel were in contact with other Benlate plaintiffs’ lawyers throughout the country and were monitoring o