X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 18 / 38

107 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

18 / 38

(Pl. Am. RICO St., 6b.) Defendant contends that because Plaintiffs claim in the Amended

Complaint that Commonwealth Land acted only through its title agents, the “person” and

“enterprise” are one and the same. (Def. Mot. to Dismiss, 23.) According to Defendant, Plaintiffs

have failed to allege a valid association-in-fact enterprise because no “person” is distinct from the

alleged “enterprise.”

Consideration of the parties’ distinctiveness argument requires a review of Jaguar Cars, Inc.

v. Royal Oaks Motor Car Co., Inc., the Third Circuit’s opinion outlining this Circuit’s interpretation

of the RICO distinctiveness mandate. 46 F.3d 258 (3d Cir. 1995). In Jaguar Cars, the court

confronted the issue of whether plaintiff alleged illicit activity by a “person” or defendant who

participated in a separate and distinct “enterprise.” Id. at 262. In that case, plaintiff Jaguar Cars

claimed that individual owners of a jointly-owned Jaguar dealership, named Royal Oaks Motor Car

Company, perpetuated a scheme to submit fraudulent warranty claims to plaintiff. Id. at 260.

Plaintiff alleged that the individual owners were the “persons” operating and managing the Royal

Oaks dealership and named them as defendants in the case. The Royal Oaks dealership was the

designated “enterprise” through which the defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity

that defrauded plaintiff. The Third Circuit held that naming the Royal Oaks dealership as the

“enterprise” and its owners as “persons” or defendants satisfied the distinctiveness requirement of

§ 1962(c).

Jaguar Cars is factually distinguishable from the present matter because that case alleged

conduct by individual corporate officers who managed a corporate enterprise. However, language

in Jaguar Cars is relevant here. The court noted that “a corporation would be liable under § 1962(c)

only if it engages in racketeering activity as a ‘person’ in another distinct ‘enterprise.’” Id. at 268

18

Document info
Document views107
Page views107
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 18:41:22 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments