X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 21 / 38

134 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

21 / 38

The case before the Court “is not a situation where the enterprise cannot be either formally

or practically separable from the person.” Living Designs, 431 F.3d at 362. The minimum amount

of “separateness” between a “person” and “enterprise” required for a RICO violation was described

in Cedric Kushner, supra at 163. In that case, the Court confronted the question of whether there are

technically two entities (a “person” and an “enterprise”) where the person (Don King) is the

president, employee and sole shareholder of a closely held corporation (Don King Productions) and

the alleged enterprise is the corporation itself. Id. at 160. The Court held that Don King as corporate

owner/employee was distinct from the Don King Productions corporation. Id. at 163. In so finding,

the Court explained that RICO simply requires a formal legal distinction between the “person” and

“enterprise.” Id. at 165. See also McCullough v. Suter, 757 F.2d 142, 144 (7th Cir. 1985)

(concluding that all that is required to satisfy the distinctiveness requirement is that the enterprise

be formally or practically separable from the individual).

Here, Plaintiffs have satisfied the minimum “person” and “enterprise” distinctiveness

requirement because the combination of Commonwealth Land and the title agents constitute a single

“enterprise” separate and distinct from the “person” of Defendant Commonwealth Land and this

combination is permissible under RICO jurisprudence.

b. Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege an Organized “Enterprise” Structure.

To plead an “association-in-fact” RICO enterprise, Plaintiffs must show: (i) that there exists

an ongoing organization, formal or informal; (ii) that the various associates of the organization

function as a continuing unit; and (iii) that the organization has an existence separate and apart from

the alleged pattern of racketeering activity. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981).

21

Document info
Document views134
Page views134
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 00:31:31 UTC 2017
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments