Opinion ID: 765593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counts I and III -- The Civil RICO Claims

Text: 26 Counts I and III of the RTC's Third Amended Complaint assert causes of actions for violations of 18 U.S.C.SS 1962 (c) and (d). 3 Since the RTC's section 1962(d) claim is premised on conspiracy to violate 1962(c), Count III relies on the application of collateral estoppel to uphold summary judgment on Count I. A violation of S 1962(c) . . . requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985) (footnote omitted). To prevail on its civil RICO claims, the RTC must prove each of those elements and that Lincoln was injured in [its] business or property by the conduct constituting the violation. Id. The causation element requires a showing that the conduct constituting the violation both directly and proximately caused the alleged injury. See Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992). Recovery under RICO is limited to those injuries flowing from predicate acts, see Sedima, 473 U.S. at 497 (Any recoverable damages occurring by reason of a violation of S 1962(c) will flow from the commission of the predicate acts.), and does not extend to all injuries caused by an enterprise which violates RICO. 27 In Shields the American Continental investors alleged that they purchased American Continental securities based on false representations. District Court Order at 8. At issue was whether Keating's wrongful conduct injured the American Continental investors in their business or property. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law, finding that Keating violated 18 U.S.C. S 1962 (c) and (d) and that Keating's conduct injured the American Continental investors. Shields at 17-18. 28 The issue involved in Shields is not the same as the issue in this case. Lincoln was not an investor in American Continental and Lincoln's alleged damages stem from conduct not adjudicated in Shields. While the pattern of conduct in Shields and the present action are related, the claims and damages are substantially dissimilar. Consequently, the Shields determinations cannot sustain the district court's summary judgment for the RTC. See Kamilche, 53 F.3d at 1062. 29