Comments on: Lago Agrio: Maneuvers In The Second Circuit

By: Lago Agrio: Updates in the Second Circuit and the ICC | Letters Blogatory

Lago Agrio: Updates in the Second Circuit and the ICC | Letters Blogatory — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:00:26 +0000

[…] The Second Circuit has denied the motion of Steven Donziger and the Lago Agrio plaintiffs to have the appeal of Judge Kaplan’s judgment in the RICO case assigned to the same panel of judges who decided the Naranjo case. I covered the motion a couple of weeks ago. […]

By: New Lago Agrio Feature: Sleaziest PR Of The Week | Letters Blogatory

New Lago Agrio Feature: Sleaziest PR Of The Week | Letters Blogatory — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:01:00 +0000

[…] of the case. But this week, the winner is a press release from Hinton Communications about the amicus brief recently filed in the Second Circuit by Legal Momentum, formerly the NOW Legal Defense and […]

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:26:27 +0000

In reply to walker. Walker, I think you're right insofar as the weight of authority does not allow private actions for injunctive relief under RICO. This is a good example of a point that often eludes non-lawyers: a case that's in the news can turn on a point that has nothing to do with the issues that got the case into the news in the first place!

By: walker

walker — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:06:26 +0000

I think Legal Momentum’s argument runs against prevailing winds. Three reasons for this: first, the Second Circuit ought to know that Civil RICO has already extended well beyond its original remit. This much the Supreme Court has okayed, but many many suits under 1964(c) are supplemental claims that cover conduct that, absent RICO, would be straightforward state law claims for tortious interference with contract. Does the Second Circuit really want to approve permanent injunctions from federal court for a statute that more often than not crops up in commercial litigation than anything else?

Second, the remedy Legal Momentum seeks to protect in order to fight what it calls “harassment” is just as easily characterized as a tool to impose unlawful restraints on conduct that is either constitutionally protected or, that failing, conduct which U.S. courts have no business regulating (foreign recognition of foreign judgments, for example).

Third, it makes just as much sense to impose a limited reading on 1964(a)’s applicability to (b) & (c). Congress has already provided for statutory treble damages and attorneys fees. Isn’t that enough to make Legal Momentum’s “repetitive litigation” justification a bit flimsy? I imagine that if their lawyers make out a successful case under RICO against an anti-abortion organization and win treble damages and attorney’s fees, they would only be too happy to litigate the case again for continued RICO violations by the same defendant.