NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ 

No. 23-2649

_______________ 

LAUREL GARDENS LLC; AMERICAN WINTER SERVICES LLC;

LAUREL GARDENS HOLDINGS LLC; LGSM GP; CHARLES P. GAUDIOSO,

 Appellants

v.

TIMOTHY MCKENNA; MICHAEL MCKENNA; MAT SITE MANAGEMENT, LLC;

BOBBY AERENSON; GREGORY PETTINARO; CHARLES WILKINSON;

WILKINSON BUILDERS, LLC; TECHNIVATE, INC.; THOMAS DIDONATO;

KEVIN EAISE; EAISE DESIGN & LANDSCAPING, LLC; EAISE SNOW SERVICES, 

LLC; HAINES & KIBBLEHOUSE, INC; HANK JULICHER; MARGIT JULICHER;

CHRISTOPHER W. WRIGHT; DON ISKEN; PAUL ISKEN; LONGVIEW 

MANAGEMENT, LLC; MATTHEW SIBLEY; M&M LANDSCAPING, LLC; ALAN 

PERRY; MARY TRESIZE; FRANK ALCARZ; STRIVE FORCE, LLC; MJL 

ENTERPRISES; JOHN HYNANSKI; NORMAN AERENSON; ISKEN 

ENTERPRISES, LLC; FRONTIER MULCH, LLC; SAUL EWING, LLP; DAVID 

FALCONE; JOHN SNYDER 

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 5-17-cv-0570)

District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

June 27, 2024

Before: JORDAN, SMITH, Circuit Judges

and BUMB,* Chief District Judge.

* Honorable Renée Marie Bumb, Chief District Judge of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
2

(Filed June 28, 2024)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge

In this civil RICO case, plaintiffs Laurel Gardens, LLC, American Winter 

Services, LLC, Laurel Gardens Holdings, LLC, LGSM, GP, and Charles P. Gaudioso

(collectively, “Laurel Gardens” or “the Company”) appeal the District Court’s order 

granting summary judgment to defendants Don Isken, Paul Isken, and Isken Enterprises, 

LLC (the “Iskens”), and Henry and Margit Julicher (the “Julichers”). Laurel Gardens 

alleges that the Iskens and the Julichers helped a thieving employee, defendant Timothy 

McKenna, render it insolvent. The District Court granted summary judgment against 

Laurel Gardens, holding that the Company had failed to demonstrate an association-infact between the Iskens, the Julichers, and McKenna. Because the District Court erred as 

a matter of law, we will vacate and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In March 2012, Charles Guadioso formed Laurel Gardens Holdings to purchase 

Laurel Gardens, LLC, LGSM GP, and American Winter Services, LLC. The combined 

enterprise offered landscaping and snow removal services. One of Laurel Gardens’s 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, 

does not constitute binding precedent.
3

senior managers, Timothy McKenna, was secretly offering the Company’s services to his 

own creditors for free, as a way of repaying his personal debts. 

According to Laurel Gardens, McKenna also received loans by offering the 

Company’s services for free, and he used that money to start a competing business, luring

away Laurel Gardens’s customers and thus rendering it insolvent. The Iskens and the 

Julichers were two of McKenna’s creditors. Laurel Gardens asserts that they continued 

to lend money to McKenna to help him start his own business with the purpose of 

bankrupting Laurel Gardens. In this way, they would “ensure the loans would be paid in 

full,” which could only happen if McKenna “fulfilled [his] vision” of supplanting the 

Company. (Opening Br. at 23.) Laurel Gardens claims that the Iskens and Julichers thus 

aided and abetted McKenna’s illegal activities. It also alleges that Henry Julicher made a 

series of physical and financial threats, intending to control Laurel Gardens. 

B. Procedural History1

Laurel Gardens sued thirty-three defendants in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations statute (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), (c), and (d), and asserting several 

state law claims.

2

 Eventually, every defendant except for the Julichers and the Iskens 

1 All citations to “Docket Items” (D.I.) refer to the District Court’s docket, located 

at Laurel Gardens v. McKenna, LLC, No. 5-17-cv-0570 (E.D. Pa.).

2 This is the second time this case has been before us on appeal. In Laurel 

Gardens, LLC v. McKenna, we vacated the District Court’s dismissal of the Iskens for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. 948 F.3d 105, 109, 124 (3d Cir. 2020).
4

were taken out of the case: some settled with Laurel Gardens, others were voluntarily 

dismissed, and a few were dismissed by the District Court. The Iskens and Julichers filed 

motions for summary judgment, which the Court denied. 

After fact discovery closed, the District Court granted the Iskens’ and Julichers’ 

renewed motions for summary judgment, holding that Laurel Gardens failed to establish 

that the Iskens, Julichers, and McKenna constituted an association-in-fact criminal 

enterprise, as – the Court concluded – was required by § 1962(b) and (c). The Court held

that the evidence did not demonstrate “the requisite relationships among” McKenna and 

the Iskens and Julichers.3 (J.A. at 16.) The Court also held that the claim under § 

1962(d), conspiracy to commit a RICO violation, failed because no enterprise existed. 

Finally, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and 

dismissed the whole action. 

Laurel Gardens timely appealed. It does not challenge the District Court’s 

dismissal of claims under § 1962(c). It argues only that the Court erred by dismissing the

claims brought under § 1962(b) and (d) and state law. 

3 McKenna was supposedly the “hub” of an alleged association-in-fact enterprise 

consisting of a “hub, spokes, and rim” (J.A. at 16), with the Julichers and the Iskens as 

the “spokes,” funding McKenna’s efforts to put Laurel Gardens out of business.
5

II. DISCUSSION4

Laurel Gardens argues that the District Court improperly conflated subsections (b) 

and (c) of § 1962, and in so doing improperly dismissed its subsection (b) and (d) claims

and the state law claims. We agree. 

RICO was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,

Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, 941-48, with, as the name indicates, the aim of toppling 

organized crime. It provides a private right of action for anyone “injured in his business 

or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter[.]” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1964(c). Section 1962 “protects a legitimate ‘enterprise’ from those who would use 

unlawful acts to victimize it, and also protects the public from those who would 

unlawfully use an ‘enterprise’ (whether legitimate or illegitimate) as a ‘vehicle’ through 

which ‘unlawful ... activity is committed[.]’” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 

533 U.S. 158, 164 (2001) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 

576, 591 (1981); and then quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,

510 U.S. 249, 259 (1994)). 

Accordingly, RICO prohibits two kinds of activities: one in which an enterprise 

becomes the victim of illegal activity and one in which the enterprise itself is used to 

commit crimes. Subsections (a) and (b) prohibit the former, namely, “the acquisition of 

4 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1964(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the District 

Court’s order granting summary judgment and questions of statutory interpretation de 

novo.” Pa. State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. Sec’y Commw. of Pa., 97 F.4th 120, 129 

n.5 (3d Cir. 2024).
6

an enterprise” through or with funds derived from illegal activities. Reves v. Ernst & 

Young, 507 U.S. 170, 182 (1993) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(b); see Scheidler, 510 U.S. 

at 259 (“The enterprise in these subsections is the victim of unlawful activity[.]”)).

Subsection (c), by contrast, prohibits “the operation of an enterprise through a 

pattern of racketeering activity[.]” Reves, 507 U.S. at 182. So, the “‘enterprise’ in 

subsection (c) connotes generally the vehicle through which the unlawful pattern of 

racketeering activity is committed, rather than the victim of that activity.” Scheidler, 510 

U.S. at 259. 

Laurel Gardens appeals the Court’s decision with respect to subsection (b), as well 

as the follow-on decisions to dismiss the subsection (d) claim (conspiracy to violate

RICO) and the state law claims. Subsection (b) makes it “unlawful for any person 

through a pattern of racketeering activity ... to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, 

any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which 

affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). To demonstrate such a 

violation, the plaintiff must show three things: (1) the defendant has an interest in or 

control of an enterprise; (2) the defendant gained or maintained that interest or control

through a pattern of racketeering; and (3) the enterprise affects interstate commerce. See 

Macauley v. Est. of Nicholas, 7 F. Supp. 3d 468, 485 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

5

 

5

“RICO recognizes liability for those who merely aid and abet the underlying 

predicate offenses.” Banks v. Wolk, 918 F.2d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 1990). 

[T]o find a defendant liable for aiding and abetting a predicate act under 

RICO, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the substantive act has been 

committed, and (2) that the defendant alleged to have aided and abetted 
7

RICO does not define the type of “interest” and “control” necessary to violate 

subsection (b) in relation to a victim enterprise, so courts consider “the ordinary meaning 

of the words used.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 21 (1983) (quoting Richards 

v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9 (1962)) (noting that RICO does not define “interest”); 

Moffatt Enters., Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 143, 147 (W.D. Pa. 1990) (noting that 

RICO does not define “control”). The Supreme Court has defined “interest” in the 

context of RICO’s forfeiture provision, § 1963(a)(1), as “‘a right, claim, title or legal 

share in something[’] ... including profits and proceeds.” Russello, 464 U.S. at 21 

(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 729 (5th ed. 1979)); see also United States v. Jacobson, 

691 F.2d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1982) (extending a similar definition to § 1962(b)); cf. 

Pulsifer v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 718, 735 (2024) (“In a given statute, the same term 

usually has the same meaning[.]” (citing A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 170-71 

(2012)). “Control” of an enterprise denotes, inter alia, the power to manage, direct, or 

govern the enterprise. Control, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) (“Power or 

authority to manage, direct, superintend, restrict, regulate, govern, administer, or 

oversee.”); cf. Moffatt, 763 F. Supp. at 147-48 (“[T]he ‘control’ contemplated [in 

§ 1962(b)] is in the nature of the control one gains through the acquisition of sufficient 

stock to ... elect one or more [of an enterprise’s] directors.”).

the act knew of the commission of the act and acted with intent to facilitate 

it. 

Jaguar Cars, Inc. v. Royal Oaks Motor Car Co., 46 F.3d 258, 270 (3d Cir. 1995).
8

It follows that the harm forbidden by subsection (b) must result from the 

acquisition of control of or an interest in an enterprise, and not merely from the predicate 

racketeering acts that are aimed at the acquisition. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 

F.3d 1153, 1190 (3d Cir. 1993). And there must be a causal link; the defendant must 

have gained his interest or control in the victim enterprise “as a result of racketeering[.]” 

Id. Thus, “[i]t is not enough for the plaintiff merely to show that a person engaged in 

racketeering has an otherwise legitimate interest in an enterprise.” Id.

In dismissing Laurel Gardens’s claim, the District Court conflated two distinct 

concepts: the “vehicle” enterprise of subsection (c) and the “victim” enterprise of 

subsection (b). It held that Laurel Gardens had failed to demonstrate the requisite 

relationship between the participants in an alleged criminal enterprise – as needed to find 

an association-in-fact “vehicle” enterprise – and then said summarily, “Because 

establishing the existence of an enterprise [i.e., a vehicle] is central to Plaintiffs’ claims 

under section 1962(b) and (c), the Court must dismiss those claims.” (J.A. at 21.)

That was error. In fact, Laurel Gardens’s asserted “victim” enterprise for the 

purpose of its subsection (b) claim is Laurel Gardens itself, not McKenna’s alleged 

criminal syndicate “vehicle.”

6 Thus, we will vacate the District Court’s grant of

6 The Iskens and the Julichers assert that Laurel Gardens forfeited the theory that 

Laurel Gardens is the RICO victim enterprise. Not so. Regarding its § 1962(b) claim, 

Laurel Gardens said, “In this case, the business enterprises – [Laurel Gardens Holdings], 

[Laurel Gardens], [American Winter Services], and LGSM – were the victims through 

which the McKennas’ [sic] carried out their criminal enterprise because the McKennas [, 

i.e., Timothy and Michael,] were senior management within the business enterprises.” 

(D.I. 293 at 20; see also id. at 27 n.4 (“[T]he Julichers write that ‘Plaintiffs are obviously 

not the enterprise.’ The Julichers have not grasped the fact that [Laurel Gardens] and 
9

summary judgment to the defendants on the subsection (b) claim and remand the case to 

the District Court. 

On remand, the Court must consider whether the Julichers and the Iskens obtained 

or maintained “interest or control” in Laurel Gardens “through a pattern of racketeering 

activity[.]” § 1962(b). There may well not have been an acquisition or an acquisition 

injury,7 nor racketeering activities and an intent to aid and abet them. But, generally, “a 

federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon” by a district court,

Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976), so we will let the District Court here make 

the initial determination on those issues. 

The District Court also dismissed Laurel Gardens’s § 1962(d) claim and state law 

claims based on its erroneous ruling on the § 1962(b) claim. Accordingly, we will vacate 

the dismissal of those claims as well.

[American Winter Services] are the business enterprises for RICO purposes[.]” (citation 

omitted)).) Laurel Gardens’s damages theory does not change the analysis; its expert 

considered the defendants severally liable for all of its harms.

7 Compare Ne. Jet Ctr. v. Lehigh-Northampton Airport Auth., 767 F. Supp. 672, 

683 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (finding no § 1962(b) acquisition when the plaintiff merely alleged 

“that a campaign of misrepresentation and disparagement compelled the plaintiff to sell 

off some of its property at an undesirable price”), with Kaiser v. Stewart, No. Civ. A. 96-

6643, 1997 WL 476455, at *4, *7 & n.10 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 1997) (finding a § 1962(b) 

acquisition and acquisition injury where defendant took control of the plaintiff’s 

enterprise and rendered it insolvent).
10

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s grant of summary

judgment to the Iskens and the Julichers and remand for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.