Case Name: Jeffrey A. HANNAHOE; Edward R. Hannahoe, Jr., On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. DANA CORPORATION; Rodney Rightmyer; Michael Danowski; John A. Kaczor; Don Lewis; Jack Glazer; Charles Hartman; Kenneth R. Carl; Edward Osenbach; John Wright; Harry Whited; Harold Yerger; Evergreen Systems, Inc; Benard "Nick" Cole; P. Michael Greene; David "Bruce" Butcher; Southwood Morcott; Eastern Metals, Inc.; Gary Matz; Larry L. Goldberg; Robert H. Naspinsky; John Does 1-27
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-31
Citations: 27 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 01-1961
Parties: Jeffrey A. HANNAHOE; Edward R. Hannahoe, Jr., On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. DANA CORPORATION; Rodney Rightmyer; Michael Danowski; John A. Kaczor; Don Lewis; Jack Glazer; Charles Hartman; Kenneth R. Carl; Edward Osenbach; John Wright; Harry Whited; Harold Yerger; Evergreen Systems, Inc; Benard “Nick” Cole; P. Michael Greene; David “Bruce” Butcher; Southwood Morcott; Eastern Metals, Inc.; Gary Matz; Larry L. Goldberg; Robert H. Naspinsky; John Does 1-27.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 27
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Jeffrey A. HANNAHOE; Edward R. Hannahoe, Jr., On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. DANA CORPORATION; Rodney Rightmyer; Michael Danowski; John A. Kaczor; Don Lewis; Jack Glazer; Charles Hartman; Kenneth R. Carl; Edward Osenbach; John Wright; Harry Whited; Harold Yerger; Evergreen Systems, Inc; Benard “Nick” Cole; P. Michael Greene; David “Bruce” Butcher; Southwood Morcott; Eastern Metals, Inc.; Gary Matz; Larry L. Goldberg; Robert H. Naspinsky; John Does 1-27.
No. 01-1961.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2002.
Jan. 31, 2002.
Before ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
The facts and procedural background of this case are familiar to the parties. We hold that the District Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). See 18 U.S.C. § 1962, 1964. The court below was correct in ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
This Court has held previously that "the Supreme Court has acknowledged that a private plaintiff might validly plead (and even prove) that a defendant has committed [a RICO] violation, but still lack standing . if his own injury is too remotely connected to it." Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 171 F.3d 912, 921 (3d Cir.1999) (citing Holmes v. Securities Investor Pro tection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992)); see also Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429, 443 (3d Cir.2000).
The decision of the District Court will be AFFIRMED.