Source: cases/18usc1962/f3d-930-1161-llacua-v-western-range.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_930/1161_01/index.html
Based on these limited allegations, this court can perceive no distinction between the alleged RICO persons (WRA and MPAS) and the corresponding RICO enterprises (WRA and its members and MPAS and its members).
Thus, the district court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Richins was not distinct from WRA.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/930/1161-01 name Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n cite 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit date 2019-07-16 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_930/1161_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl sha1=c9f557eec56fe5b4397ee2851b046c782b37e4ce chars=60000 opinion op : majority by Murphy @0..60000 controlling ? opinion: IR text is capped at 60000 chars; the tail of the opinion (and any footnotes) is not in the record party assoc : Western Range Association (WRA) and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service (MPAS), membership associations of sheep ranchers, each sued as the RICO person party richins : Dennis Richins, executive director, board member and president of WRA, sued as the RICO person count c1 : ยง 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint theory t1 : distinctness between person and enterprise law 18usc1962 (c) role applied posture civil; H-2A shepherds brought antitrust and class RICO claims against ranching associations and an association officer over false reimbursement assurances to the DOL; district court dismissed the RICO claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of person/enterprise distinctness and denied leave to amend; CA10 affirmed as to the associations, reversed as to the officer result mixed element person : not-satisfied [pleaded] route distinct-from-enterprise pattern membership association named as the person; enterprise pleaded as the association plus its own members party assoc count c1 theory t1 fact @4882..5000 [cuts-against] | WRA and MPAS are membership associations for sheep ranchers. They recruit and hire shepherds for their member ranches. fact @45672..46006 [cuts-against] | The limited allegations in the SAC merely state that each Association Defendant has formed an association-in-fact with its members, the common purpose of each member of these associations-in-fact is to recruit shepherds at low wages, and that Association Defendants file job orders and H-2A Applications on behalf of their membership. fact @46239..46384 [supports] | The SAC further asserts, in entirely conclusory fashion, that the Association Defendants are the "lynchpins" of the alleged associations-in-fact. rule @44323..44478 [quoted] | In short, an organization cannot join with its own members to do that which it normally does and thereby form an enterprise separate and apart from itself. held @46385..46594 | Based on these limited allegations, this court can perceive no distinction between the alleged RICO persons (WRA and MPAS) and the corresponding RICO enterprises (WRA and its members and MPAS and its members). gloss An association sued as the RICO person is not distinct from an association-in-fact made up solely of itself and its members doing what the association normally does (Yellow Bus Lines rule adopted). element person : satisfied [pleaded] route distinct-from-enterprise pattern association officer named as the person; the association he runs as the enterprise party richins count c1 theory t1 fact @43096..43414 [supports] | Brannon and Cedric Kushner make clear that the RICO distinctness requirement is satisfied when a corporate officer, such as Richins in his role as executive director, board member, and president of WRA, is sued as the RICO defendant person and the alleged RICO enterprise is the corporation or association (i.e., WRA). rule @41955..42148 [quoted] | The corporate owner/employee, a natural person, is distinct from the corporation itself, a legally different entity with different rights and responsibilities due to its different legal status. held @43415..43521 | Thus, the district court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Richins was not distinct from WRA. gloss Cedric Kushner applied: the officer is legally distinct from the association whose affairs he conducts. The district court's contrary rule applies only where the corporation itself is the defendant person. ? polarity: the only place the opinion states Richins's offices is the sentence that also applies the rule; quoted as the fact for want of a separate factual sentence.