United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019-07-16
18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim: (c)
Uncertainty
opinion: IR text is capped at 60000 chars; the tail of the opinion (and any footnotes) is not in the record
Element 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.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 19
| Case | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | Collection of an unlawful debt (§ 1961(6)) — alternative to pattern of racketeering activity | Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a)) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 19
| Case | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | De minimis open-market securities investment proviso (§ 1962(a)) | Acquire or maintain interest in or control of an enterprise (§ 1962(b)) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test) | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 19
| Case | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Claim preclusion / release by prior class-action settlement | Civil aiding and abetting a RICO violation (rejected as a private cause of action) | Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy bar against successive RICO conspiracy/substantive prosecutions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–19 of 19
| Case | Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations |
|---|---|
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Western Range Association (WRA) and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service (MPAS), membership associations of sheep ranchers, each sued as the RICO person; count: § 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory: distinctness between person and enterprise; subject: party=Western Range Association (WRA) and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service (MPAS), membership associations of sheep ranchers, each sued as the RICO person; count=§ 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory=distinctness between person and enterprise 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). | membership association named as the person; enterprise pleaded as the association plus its own members | WRA and MPAS are membership associations for sheep ranchers. They recruit and hire shepherds for their member ranches.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [4882:5000] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [45672:46006] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.The SAC further asserts, in entirely conclusory fashion, that the Association Defendants are the "lynchpins" of the alleged associations-in-fact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [46239:46384] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [44323:44478] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [46385:46594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f. |
| Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Dennis Richins, executive director, board member and president of WRA, sued as the RICO person; count: § 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory: distinctness between person and enterprise; subject: party=Dennis Richins, executive director, board member and president of WRA, sued as the RICO person; count=§ 1962(c) claims of the second amended complaint; theory=distinctness between person and enterprise 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. | association officer named as the person; the association he runs as the enterprise | 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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [43096:43414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [41955:42148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Thus, the district court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Richins was not distinct from WRA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [43415:43521] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
"[T]o establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to by a different name.
Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
"[T]o establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to by a different name.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17834:18051] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).
interpretation
The latter type of enterprise, an "association-in-fact," is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct and requires evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.
Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
The latter type of enterprise, an "association-in-fact," is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct and requires evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17447:17743] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Turkette and Boyle govern association-in-fact enterprises: purpose + relationships among associates + longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.
interpretation
"[T]o establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to by a different name.
Llacua v. Western Range Ass'n — 930 F.3d 1161 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
"[T]o establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to by a different name.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17834:18051] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Under § 1962(c), the culpable "person" and the "enterprise" must be distinct entities, though a corporate owner/employee is legally distinct from the incorporated enterprise. Applies to § 1962(c) ("employed by or associated with"), not necessarily to § 1962(a) where a corporate enterprise may invest racketeering income in itself.