Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-18-1989

Abstract

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.) dismissing the amended complaint of plaintiff-appellant Howard Jacobson ("Jacobson") for failure to state a claim 718*718 upon which relief can be granted.[1] See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In his amended complaint, Jacobson alleged, inter alia, that his son, David Jacobson ("David"), and Sam Cooper ("Cooper"), the defendants-appellees in this action, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b) & (d) (1982 & Supp. V 1987), by engaging in a scheme to appropriate Jacobson's real estate enterprise. The district court dismissed the action, finding that the amended complaint did not describe an enterprise distinct from the individual defendants, as the court held was required under RICO.

We find that Jacobson, although awkward in his characterization of the RICO enterprise, alleged a RICO enterprise distinct from the individual defendants. Furthermore, a "pattern" of racketeering activity, a necessary element of a RICO action, also was alleged. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for reinstatement of the amended complaint.

Comments

882 F.2d 717 (1989)

Howard JACOBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Sam COOPER and David Jacobson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1179, Docket 89-7217. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 2, 1989. Decided August 18, 1989.

New York Law School location: File #792, Box #123

Share

COinS