DeMuro v. Hutton

S.D. New York

DeMuro v. Hutton

662 F. Supp. 308, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25572

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 13, 1986

Docket85 Civ. 7097(WK)

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 662 F. Supp. 308 (DeMuro v. Hutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeMuro v. Hutton, 662 F. Supp. 308, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25572 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, District Judge.

In a Memorandum and Order of January 13, 1986 we dismissed the RICO portion of the above captioned complaint, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), “without prejudice to plaintiff to plead, within twenty days, a set of facts which will realistically establish that plaintiffs were injured by Hutton’s investment of racketeering proceeds in its Red Bank, New Jersey office.” (Familiarity with that opinion is assumed.) Plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly and defendant again moved to dismiss, claiming that plaintiffs’ allegations fell short of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). We agree, and dismiss the RICO cause of action.

Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that Hutton’s investment of racketeering proceeds in its Red Bank, New Jersey office proximately caused their injury in two ways. First, the money allegedly earned through racketeering activities was used to pay the commissions of the Hutton brokers who mismanaged plaintiffs’ account, thereby creating the incentive for, and rewarding successful completion of the fraud. Second, the racketeering proceeds financed Hutton’s general office expenses, thereby permitting the continued defrauding of plaintiffs.

These allegations have not changed in any significant way since we dismissed the original complaint in this action. The problem was, and continues to be, that plaintiffs have not and can not allege how the investment of racketeering proceeds in the Red Bank, New Jersey office of E.F. Hutton proximately caused their injury. The contention that paying brokers’ commissions and financing the operation of an office is sufficient to state a cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) would turn every churning case into a RICO case. Since *309 plaintiffs have cited no case law in support of this novel position, and since we believe that it would involve a vast and unwarranted extension of the boundaries of civil RICO, we grant the motion and dismiss the RICO cause of action with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

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

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, District Judge.

In a Memorandum and Order of January 13, 1986 we dismissed the RICO portion of the above captioned complaint, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), “without prejudice to plaintiff to plead, within twenty days, a set of facts which will realistically establish that plaintiffs were injured by Hutton’s investment of racketeering proceeds in its Red Bank, New Jersey office.” (Familiarity with that opinion is assumed.) Plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly and defendant again moved to dismiss, claiming that plaintiffs’ allegations fell short of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). We agree, and dismiss the RICO cause of action.

Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that Hutton’s investment of racketeering proceeds in its Red Bank, New Jersey office proximately caused their injury in two ways. First, the money allegedly earned through racketeering activities was used to pay the commissions of the Hutton brokers who mismanaged plaintiffs’ account, thereby creating the incentive for, and rewarding successful completion of the fraud. Second, the racketeering proceeds financed Hutton’s general office expenses, thereby permitting the continued defrauding of plaintiffs.

These allegations have not changed in any significant way since we dismissed the original complaint in this action. The problem was, and continues to be, that plaintiffs have not and can not allege how the investment of racketeering proceeds in the Red Bank, New Jersey office of E.F. Hutton proximately caused their injury. The contention that paying brokers’ commissions and financing the operation of an office is sufficient to state a cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) would turn every churning case into a RICO case. Since *309 plaintiffs have cited no case law in support of this novel position, and since we believe that it would involve a vast and unwarranted extension of the boundaries of civil RICO, we grant the motion and dismiss the RICO cause of action with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 F. Supp. 308, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demuro-v-hutton-nysd-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack