Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-11-02475/USCOURTS-ca2-11-02475-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judge, joined by JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA

RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges,

dissenting from the denial of rehearing in banc:

I respectfully dissent from denial of rehearing in banc.  The panel opinion

in this appeal is in taut tension with our earlier opinion in Norex Petroleum Ltd.

v. Access Industries, Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam).  The resulting

instability will likely require in banc review to reconcile these precedents, or to

jettison one of them.

Both cases address the extraterritorial application of the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

They reach dissonant conclusions as to: (1) whether RICO may apply

extraterritorially, compare Norex, 631 F.3d at 31, with European Cmty. v. RJR

Nabisco, Inc., 764 F.3d 129, 136 (2d Cir. 2014); (2) whether Supreme Court

precedent “forecloses [the] argument that because a number of RICO’s predicate

acts possess an extraterritorial reach, RICO itself possesses an extraterritorial

reach,” Norex, 631 F.3d at 33; compare id., with RJR Nabisco, 764 F.3d at 136; and

(3) the very definition of an extraterritorial application of RICO, namely whether

extraterritoriality turns on the foreign locus of the enterprise or the foreign locus

of the predicate acts, compare Norex 631 F.3d at 31, 33, with RJR Nabisco, 764 F.3d

at 136, 142.

Case 11-2475, Document 182, 04/13/2015, 1482809, Page1 of 2
The frequency of RICO litigation in this Circuit all but ensures that district

courts will face vexing questions about this.  Litigation on the fault lines of Norex

and RJR Nabisco is likely to present “a controlling question of law as to which

there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and whose resolution “may

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”  28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b).  Under such conditions, “district courts should not hesitate to certify an

interlocutory appeal.”  Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 111

(2009).

2

Case 11-2475, Document 182, 04/13/2015, 1482809, Page2 of 2