CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack International Corp. v. Vohra

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferri v. Berkowitz

This action involves state law claims for fraud and breach of agreement, alongside federal claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), brought by Plaintiff Antonio Ferri. Ferri alleges that Defendants Edward Wilson, Jan Berkowitz, JMB Group, LLC, and Edward Grieco engaged in fraudulent activities related to a $250,000 loan. The court addressed a motion by Defendant Wilson to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction, with other defendants joining the motion to dismiss on the merits. The court dismissed all RICO claims against all defendants for insufficient pleading of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity. Additionally, all claims against Defendant Wilson were dismissed due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The state law claims against the remaining defendants continue.

RICO ActFraudBreach of AgreementMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionRacketeering ActivityEnterprise (RICO)Wire FraudBankruptcy FraudMortgage Fraud
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cefali v. Buffalo Brass Co., Inc.

Six former employees of Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco) sued Arco and American Brass Company (ABC) after being discharged by ABC shortly after Arco sold its Metals Division to ABC. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) through mail fraud, aiming to defraud them of superior Arco severance benefits. They also brought a state law claim for breach of employment agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the RICO claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege a 'pattern of racketeering activity' as required by RICO, finding the alleged acts to be part of a single transaction rather than continuous criminal activity. Consequently, the state law claim was also dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICOMail FraudRacketeering ActivitySeverance BenefitsEmployment AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7)Pattern RequirementContinuity Plus Relationship
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1994

Brooke v. Schlesinger

Peter Brooke filed a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for common law fraud against Daniel Stieglitz, Mark Sugel, and other defendants. Brooke alleged a scheme to defraud him at Net 30 Accessories, Inc., which he co-founded. The alleged fraudulent activities included invoicing fraud, concealment of financial information, and inducing Brooke to sell his interest in the company under false pretenses. Defendants Stieglitz and Sugel moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. The court granted Stieglitz's motion, dismissing the RICO and common law fraud claims against him due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts and lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the state claim. However, the court denied Sugel's motion, finding that Brooke sufficiently pleaded predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, causation, and common law fraud against him. Plaintiff Brooke was granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days.

RICO ActCivil ActionMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudFraudulent SchemeRacketeering ActivityPattern of RacketeeringProximate CauseRICO Conspiracy
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pieper v. Benerin, LLC

The plaintiff, Susan Pieper d/b/a Pet Expressions, filed an action alleging a racketeering scheme and conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Ron Coiro, Benerin, LLC, Smithaven Veterinary Clinic, Inc., and Smithaven Grooming. Pieper claimed the defendants conspired to overcharge her for utilities, disrupt her business, and defraud the Town of Smithtown, along with state law claims for misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claims with prejudice, citing lack of standing for claims against third parties, insufficient pleading specificity for some defendants, and failure to establish a pattern of racketeering activity with open-ended or close-ended continuity. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActRICOMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudExtortionPleading StandardsFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)Pattern of Racketeering Activity
References
48
Case No. 03 Cr. 0229(NRB)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Tomero

Louis Moscatiello, one of fifteen defendants associated with the Genovese organized crime family, moved to dismiss his indictment for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion on double jeopardy grounds. Moscatiello argued that his prior guilty plea in 2004, which granted him immunity for Genovese-related activities between 1978 and 2004, encompassed the current charges. The court, presided over by District Judge Kaplan, applied the Russotti factors to determine if the alleged extortion of "Victim-1" (November 2003 to January 2004) was part of the same pattern of racketeering activity as the prior charges (control over Locals 14, 15, and 530 of various unions). The court found that the current charges involved different co-conspirators and a distinct nature and scope of activity. Consequently, the court denied Moscatiello's motion, concluding that the indictment did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or his 2004 plea agreement.

Double JeopardyRICOHobbs ActExtortionConspiracyOrganized CrimeGenovese Crime FamilyPlea AgreementImmunityRacketeering Activity
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maussner v. McCormick

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, their general contractor, violated RICO by demanding "kickback" commissions from subcontractors, leading to overcharges. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to show a "pattern of racketeering activity." The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the alleged acts, which revolved around a single construction contract over a limited period, did not satisfy RICO's "pattern" requirement of "continuity plus relationship." Consequently, the federal RICO claim was dismissed, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal jurisdiction.

RICORacketeering ActivityPattern RequirementContinuity Plus RelationshipSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractKickbacksSubcontractorsFederal JurisdictionState Law Claims
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sybedon Corp. v. Mendell

Plaintiff Sybedon Corporation brought a lawsuit against Jeffrey B. Mendell and JBM Realty Capital Corp., alleging a fraudulent scheme involving mail and wire fraud, and several common law claims arising from a breach of an employment agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of a "pattern of racketeering activity" under the RICO statute. The court, presided over by District Judge Haight, agreed that the alleged acts constituted a single fraudulent scheme, not a continuous pattern, and thus failed to establish a viable civil RICO claim. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of all associated state and common law claims.

RICORacketeering ActivityMail FraudWire FraudCivil RemediesPattern of RacketeeringSubject Matter JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudulent SchemeDismissal
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Condos Bros. Construction Corp. v. Main Street America Assurance Co.

Condos Brothers Construction Corp. sued Main Street America Assurance Company alleging overpayment of workers' compensation insurance premiums due to miscategorization of employees, bringing claims under the civil RICO Act and for RICO conspiracy. The defendant moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion, dismissing both RICO claims with prejudice. It found the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a distinct RICO enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity with the required particularity under Rule 9(b), concluding that multiple acts of fraud against a single victim in one transaction do not constitute a RICO pattern. Leave to amend the complaint was denied, as the court deemed it a breach of contract action disguised as a federal RICO case.

Civil RICORICO ConspiracyMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance PremiumsFraudulent SchemeEnterprise DistinctnessPattern of Racketeering ActivityMail Fraud
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,027 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational