Volume
72
Abstract
The RICO Act has been confusing for courts to navigate—especially given the Due Process Clause's impact on which defendants courts may have within their personal jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit Court recently joined a thirty-year old federal circuit split with Peter’s Broadcast Engineering, Inc. v. 24 Capital, LLC, in which the Court held that § 1965(b) is the governing subsection for personal jurisdiction in RICO cases. This Note considers the inherent conflict between the hefty goals the RICO Act sets out to accomplish, and a defendant’s constitutional right to due process of law.
This Note concludes with a new test in which courts can classify defendants as either primary or tertiary actors and apply (1) the “ends of justice” standard under § 1965(b) of the RICO Act and (2) balancing factors described forthwith to determine if the forum state does have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In turn, § 1965(d) can be used for other processes that are not related to service of process on defendants in civil RICO actions. As a result, this new test will provide a more consistent basis of precedent for courts to build on and increase support for the majority side of the circuit split in the name of prioritizing defendants’ rights.
Recommended Citation
Claire Kinnear,
To Bring or Not to Bring: The Personal Jurisdiction Question Raised Under the RICO Statute, and How Courts Can Ensure The “Ends of Justice” Are Truly Just,
72 Clev. St. L. Rev. Et Cetera
141
(2024)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etcetera/vol72/iss1/7