United States v. Ianniello

Summary

The court denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Government’s civil RICO complaint, holding that challenges to the scope of requested relief were premature and that a related criminal acquittal did not collaterally estop the civil action. The court also granted the Government’s renewed application for appointment of a receiver pendente lite for Umberto’s Clam House based on evidence of continued skimming and permissible adverse inferences from defendants’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the Twenty-first Amendment barred the requested federal relief.

Holdings

1. A civil RICO complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) merely because some requested forms of relief may be unavailable; the scope of appropriate relief may be determined after the Government prevails on the merits.
2. The acquittal did not, at the pleading stage and on the record presented, collaterally estop the Government from pursuing the civil RICO action against Robert Ianniello.
3. In a civil RICO proceeding, a factfinder may draw a probative adverse inference from an individual or corporate defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, provided the inference is considered as one factor among the facts and is not used as the sole automatic basis for a civil sanction.
4. The Twenty-first Amendment did not bar the federal civil RICO action or the requested equitable relief.
5. The Government established sufficient grounds for appointment of a receiver pendente lite for Osbro Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Umberto's Clam House.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended civil RICO complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because some forms of relief requested by the Government might be unavailable.
2. Whether Robert Ianniello's acquittal in the related criminal case collaterally estopped the Government from litigating his participation in the alleged RICO conduct.
3. Whether defendants' invocation of the Fifth Amendment in civil discovery could support an adverse factual inference.
4. Whether the Twenty-first Amendment barred the Government's civil RICO action or the requested equitable relief.
5. Whether the expanded record justified appointment of a receiver pendente lite under 18 U.S.C. § 1964.

Disposition

other