Summary
The First Circuit held that an employee discharged after reporting alleged criminal violations by his employer lacked standing to pursue civil RICO damages. The alleged predicate offenses did not directly cause the employee's discharge, so the injury was not suffered "by reason of" a RICO violation; the court affirmed dismissal and denial of leave to amend.
Holdings
- An employee discharged for reporting an employer's alleged criminal RICO predicate violations lacks standing to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) when the discharge was not caused by the conduct constituting the alleged RICO violations.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nodine's motion to amend the complaint.
Questions Presented
- Whether an employee discharged for reporting alleged criminal conduct by his employer has standing to seek civil RICO damages when the discharge was not caused by the alleged predicate offenses themselves.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Nodine's motion to amend the complaint to cure alleged pleading deficiencies.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- Haroco v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 747 F.2d 384, 398 (7th Cir. 1984), aff'd, American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Haroco, 473 U.S. 606 (1985)(followed)
- American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Haroco, 473 U.S. 606, 105 S. Ct. 3291, 87 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1985)(followed)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285-86, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985)(followed)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhodes, 741 F.2d 511, 516 (2d Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Morast v. Lance, 807 F.2d 926, 932-33 (11th Cir. 1987)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…