Court Opinion

ID: 9696865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:00:41.925306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.298751
License: Public Domain

*478WIEAND, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I join the majority’s decision holding that the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to hear civil RICO claims. I also concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the order of the trial court which sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XII of the complaint against Frank P. Carr, III, individually. I disagree, however, that in making this decision we can avoid a determination of whether the averments of Counts III and XI are sufficient to state causes of action against Carr.
My review of the record suggests that the trial court properly sustained Carr’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to these two counts. Each count seeks equitable relief which would require that title and possession of the sports complex, together with the right to receive the rents and profits therefrom, be turned over to the corporate appellant. The title to this sports complex is vested in Camelback Associates, a corporation. Therefore, even if these counts are sufficient to state a cause of action against Camelback — a decision which we are not required to make — it is clear to me that they do not state a cause of action against Carr. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment entered in favor of Carr on Counts III and XI of the complaint.