Alloy v. Miller

Third Circuit

Alloy v. Miller

769 F.2d 939

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1178

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 769 F.2d 939 (Alloy v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alloy v. Miller, 769 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[940]*940OPINION OF THE COURT

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the plaintiff in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1982), must allege a nexus between the defendant and “organized crime.”

The plaintiffs, investors in Willbet Enterprises, Inc. and State Financial Corporation, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against State Financial and officers of both Willbet and State Financial. The complaint alleged that the defendants had violated section 1962(c) of RICO and the analogous provision of Florida’s RICO Act, Fla.Stat.Ann. 895.01-07, as well as the federal securities laws and various state laws, by engaging in a “Ponzi scheme” in connection with the sale of Will-bet and State Financial Securities. The district court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s RICO claims for failure to allege that the defendants were connected to organized crime.

For the reasons stated in our decision today in Gilbert v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 769 F.2d 940 (3d Cir.1985), we will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[940]*940OPINION OF THE COURT

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the plaintiff in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1982), must allege a nexus between the defendant and “organized crime.”

The plaintiffs, investors in Willbet Enterprises, Inc. and State Financial Corporation, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against State Financial and officers of both Willbet and State Financial. The complaint alleged that the defendants had violated section 1962(c) of RICO and the analogous provision of Florida’s RICO Act, Fla.Stat.Ann. 895.01-07, as well as the federal securities laws and various state laws, by engaging in a “Ponzi scheme” in connection with the sale of Will-bet and State Financial Securities. The district court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s RICO claims for failure to allege that the defendants were connected to organized crime.

For the reasons stated in our decision today in Gilbert v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 769 F.2d 940 (3d Cir.1985), we will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 F.2d 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alloy-v-miller-ca3-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack