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

RICO: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

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