Francisco Pujol, et al. v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., et al.

829 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1987) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · September 29, 1987 · No. No. 87-1190

Summary

The First Circuit reviewed the dismissal of claims arising from Francisco Pujol’s employment with Shearson/American Express, including a civil RICO claim and various Commonwealth-law claims. The court held that Pujol lacked RICO standing because the alleged predicate acts did not cause the injuries alleged, and it affirmed dismissal of claims asserted by his wife and conjugal partnership where they were barred or inadequately pleaded. The court reversed dismissal of certain independent privacy, conversion, and emotional-distress claims asserted by Ana Bonelli and remanded.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Writing for the Court
Bownes, Circuit Judge; Campbell, Chief Judge; Noonan, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
September 29, 1987
Docket number
No. 87-1190
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint and the denial of their motion for partial summary judgment. They challenged dismissal of their RICO claim and of claims asserted by Ana Bonelli and the conjugal partnership, but did not challenge dismissal of the securities-violations claim.
Standard of review
On review of dismissal, the court treated all well-pleaded allegations as true. The court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the complaint and the res judicata effect of the arbitration award de novo.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Francisco Pujol, Ana Bonelli de Pujol, the conjugal partnership constituted between Francisco Pujol and Ana Bonelli de Pujol v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., individual Shearson executives
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

employment lawemployment contractsarbitrationcivil procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

employment lawcivil procedureappellate procedurecontractscommercial litigationremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Pujol had standing under RICO when the alleged predicate acts injured investors or involved illegal schemes, but the injuries alleged by Pujol resulted from his suspension, termination, alleged defamation, and related acts taken in response to his reporting those schemes.
  2. Whether the absence of detailed factual findings in the arbitration award prevented the award from having res judicata effect.
  3. Whether Bonelli and the conjugal partnership adequately pleaded independent claims in the third through ninth causes of action.
  4. Whether the arbitration award barred claims asserted by the conjugal partnership and Bonelli.
  5. Whether the denial of appellants' motion for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel was reviewable after dismissal of the complaint.

Holdings

  1. A civil RICO plaintiff must show both a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, including qualifying predicate acts, and injury to business or property caused by the conduct constituting that violation. Pujol lacked RICO standing because the complaint did not allege the required causal connection between the pleaded predicate acts and his injuries.
  2. The appellate court would not rewrite the complaint to add obstruction-of-justice or obstruction-of-law-enforcement theories first raised at oral argument.
  3. An arbitration award expressly characterized as a full and final settlement is not rendered ambiguous or ineffective as res judicata merely because the arbitrators made no detailed factual findings.
  4. The third, fourth, eighth, and ninth causes of action failed to state claims on behalf of Bonelli or the conjugal partnership, or were barred by the arbitration award. The fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action were barred as to the conjugal partnership but adequately stated independent claims by Bonelli for direct injuries to herself or her property.
  5. The denial of appellants' motion for partial summary judgment was not properly reviewable because dismissal of the entire complaint rendered the motion moot. After partial reversal, the district court could consider motions concerning the revived claims on their merits.

Key quotations

If the defendant engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in a manner forbidden by [Sec. 1962], and the racketeering activities injure the plaintiff in his business or his property, the plaintiff has a claim under Sec. 1964(c).... [T]he plaintiff only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation. (¶ 32)
Firing Nodine under these circumstances was wrong, but it did not violate the RICO act (¶ 37)
Even under liberalized rules of pleading, a simple request for relief without stating any grounds therefor is inadequate. (¶ 48)
If Bonelli can prove that personal papers, documents and property belonging to her, as distinct from her husband or the conjugal partnership, were subjected to the treatment alleged, then she has stated a cause of action. (¶ 60)

Factual background

Francisco Pujol held senior executive positions with Shearson in Puerto Rico and reported alleged fraudulent securities sales, improper banking transactions, and other regulatory irregularities to Shearson executives and government authorities. After submitting a letter concerning whether the irregularities should be reported, Pujol was suspended, his office locks were changed, and media reports implicated him in a Shearson scandal. Shearson later revoked his American Express card, retained funds in his account, and seized or searched personal property and documents belonging to Pujol and Ana Bonelli.

Procedural history

Pujol first brought proceedings in the Puerto Rico Superior Court concerning personal property and a report submitted to the Puerto Rico Treasury Department. Shearson separately initiated New York Stock Exchange arbitration under Pujol's employment agreement. The arbitrators dismissed Shearson's claims and awarded Pujol $1,197,914.40 plus interest and costs; the award was later confirmed by a Florida circuit court. Meanwhile, the federal district court dismissed all causes of action and denied the parties' summary-judgment motions. The First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Remand instructions

The district court was to proceed with the revived claims, including Bonelli's independent claims for direct injuries to herself and her property, and to rule on the merits of any motions concerning those claims. Appellees were awarded 80% of the costs on appeal and appellants 20%.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…