Categories
· Business (Tobacco)
· Lawsuits
· Cross-Border/Crime
· Internet/Technology
USA, by State
· New York
Lawsuits
· Hemi
Organizations
· Scotus
|
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jump to full article: SCOTUSBlog, 2009-01-27
Intro: REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Petitioners respectfully submit that there are two reasons why this Court should grant their petition for writ of certiorari and review the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. First, as the Second Circuit and other courts have recognized, there is a distinct split of opinion among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether state and local governments can use RICO in federal district courts to collect taxes and similar non commercial losses. Second, the ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's conflicts with this Court's precedent requiring a party to suffer a direct injury to have RICO standing.
I. THE CIRCUITS ARE SPLIT.
Standing to bring a civil RICO claim is specifically limited to "[a]ny person injured in his business or property" 18 U.S.C. ยค 1964(c) (App. E, 179a-180a); Sedima 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"); Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008) (same), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 458 (2008). In determining whether this standing requirement is met, there is an acknowledged split among the Circuits on whether losses suffered by government acting in its sovereign capacity are injuries to "business or property." . . .
II. THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL'S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT.
A. Supreme Court Precedent Limits RICO Standing To Directly Injured Parties.
Jump to full article » |