New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Attorneys’ Fees and Cost of Defense of RICO-Violative Prosecution Afford Standing, But Embarrassment, Humiliation and Inconvenience ≠ RICO Injury

Download PDF

Attorneys' Fees and Cost of Defense of RICO-Violative Prosecution Afford Standing, But Embarrassment, Humiliation and Inconvenience ≠ RICO Injury From Kilper v. City of Arnold, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63471 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2009):

The Red Light Camera Ordinance. In June 2005, City passed Bill No. 2102 enacting the original Ordinance 2.2 ("Red Light Camera Ordinance" or "Ordinance"), which contained declarations that drivers who ran red lights caused many car crashes and numerous personal injuries each year; that it was impracticable for City to place police officers at each traffic signal at all times of the day to reduce these incidents; that automatic red light enforcement programs in other jurisdictions throughout the United States have been proven to significantly reduce the number of drivers who run red lights in those jurisdictions; and that vehicles are typically driven by their owners and it is therefore reasonable to assume, without evidence to the contrary, that the owner of a vehicle is driving the vehicle at a given time and place....

The Notices of Violation. The Notice of Violation sent to the owner of a vehicle photographed running a red light states that the owner may pay the fine online, by mail, or in person; may request a hearing to dispute the Notice of Violation in person; or, if the owner was not operating the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was photographed running the red light, may transfer liability to the person operating the vehicle by completing an Affidavit of Non-Responsibility in which the owner identifies the person operating the motor vehicle at the time of the alleged violation....

Standing. In a footnote in their brief supporting the Joint Motion, Defendants suggest that the remaining "Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not paid their fines and, therefore, have suffered no injury in fact" ***

[T]he Court also finds Plaintiffs have standing to pursue some of their RICO claims at this stage of the proceedings. "RICO provides a private right of action for any person 'injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of' its substantive prohibitions. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)." Dahlgren v. First Nat'l Bank of Holdrege, 533 F.3d 681, 689 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1041 (2009). A plaintiff has standing to pursue RICO claims when, in relevant part, the plaintiff has suffered injury to the plaintiff's "business or property" due to RICO violations. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985) ("the plaintiff only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation"); Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharms, Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 954 (8th Cir. 1999) (plaintiffs who did not show injury to "business or property" within the meaning of § 1964(c), but only damage to their reputation, lacked standing to pursue RICO civil claims). Here, for their RICO claims, Plaintiffs allege in relevant part that they are "injured in their property [in that] Plaintiff[s] have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience as well as being forced to hire attorneys and expend money for attorneys' fees and costs." ***

To the extent Plaintiff allege they have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience, Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their RICO claims, as such injuries are more akin to personal injuries than to injuries to "business or property." Cf. Regions Bank v. J. R. Oil Co., 387 F.3d 721, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2004) (a showing of injury for a civil RICO claim "'requires proof of concrete financial loss, and not mere injury to a valuable intangible property interest'" (quoting Steele v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 36 F.3d 69, 70 (9th Cir. 1994)); Hamm, 187 F.3d at 954 ("[d]amage to reputation is generally considered personal injury and thus is not injury to 'business or property' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)").

"[M]oney . . . is a form of property," Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. , 442 U.S. 330, 338 (1979) (interpreting "business or property" in a consumer's antitrust case), however, and monetary losses or expenditures related to court proceedings before the RICO litigation may satisfy the "business or property" requirement for civil RICO claims. See Handeen v. Lemaire, 112 F.3d 1339, 1354 (8th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff had standing to pursue a RICO claim to recover attorneys' fees the plaintiff incurred in objecting to the defendants' allegedly fraudulent claims in bankruptcy).

Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden to show perceptible harm for purposes of standing to pursue their civil RICO claims, but only to the extent they may have expended money for attorneys' fees and costs related to the defense of the Notices of Violation, and not to the extent they allege they have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice