On September 26, 2011, Scott and Marianna Moss received word that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied a motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss RICO claims made by their client, Rocco Marini.
Jeff Grell consulted with Scott, Marianna and Mr. Marini in opposing the motion for summary judgment.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion. Although happy with the outcome, Mr. Marini and his counsel respectfully disagree with the court’s position that the plaintiff must prove that particular acts of racketeering proximately injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that the causal nexus must exist between the pattern of racketeering (not each individual act of racketeering) and the injury. See Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335, 1347 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that “a pattern of racketeering activity may be based upon predicate acts . . . as long as one act injures the plaintiff so as to create standing” because § 1964(c) “accords standing to ‘[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation’”) (citing Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co. v. Pate, 819 F.2d 806, 809-10 (7th Cir. 1987) (“Proof of a ‘pattern’ is a first step . . . . Once a pattern is proven, . . . plaintiff need not prove . . . injury from each (or more than one) predicate act . . . . It would be illogical to require a plaintiff to show that all the acts adding up to a ‘pattern’ injured him . . . . [N]o case hold[s] that . . . while there was sufficient proof of . . . a pattern . . . , the plaintiff failed to show injury . . . from all the predicate[s].”) (other citation omitted) (emphasis in original)); Lutin v. New Jersey Steel Corp., 122 F.3d 1056 (Table), No. 96-9664, 1997 WL 447005, *8 (2d Cir. Aug. 7, 1997) (“[RICO] liability may be found based on an agreement to commit predicate acts under § 1962, followed by at least one predicate act that causes injury to the plaintiff”) (emphasis added) (citing Terminate, 28 F.3d at 1346 n.4.); Com-Tech Assocs. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1092 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (“The injury must result from the ‘pattern of racketeering activity,’ not necessarily from each isolated predicate.”) (citation omitted), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir. 1991).