Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—11th Cir.: Sherman Act, RICO claims get no love in divorce case, (Dec 2, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

The federal district court in Tampa properly dismissed an individual’s Sherman Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims, which arose from a marriage dissolution case. In affirming the district court’s order to dismiss, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the matter (Courboin v. Scott, December 1, 2014, per curiam).

In the aftermath of marriage dissolution proceedings in New Jersey, Robert Courboin brought an action against his ex-wife’s attorneys, his own attorneys, and the firm that provided appraisal services for marital assets in the dissolution proceedings. Courboin alleged that the defendants violated the Sherman Act and RICO by conspiring with each other to charge excessive fees for their services. The federal district court in Tampa dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, Courboin argued that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants because RICO allows for nationwide service of process, and his complaint stated valid claims for relief.

RICO. To take advantage of RICO’s nationwide service-of-process provision, Courboin was required to state a “colorable” RICO claim, alleging: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. The court determined that he did not state a valid RICO claim, as no predicate acts were identified that could constitute racketeering activity, and no facts were set forth that supported an inference that the defendants conducted an enterprise. Courboin could therefore not take advantage of the nationwide service-of-process provision in RICO to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Sherman Act. The appellate court also determined that the district court did not have a basis for exercising jurisdiction over the Sherman Act claims, pursuant to the Florida long-arm statute. Specifically, it determined that the defendants did not have a “substantial connection” with Florida, and that Courboin’s decision to move to Florida during the divorce proceedings did not create jurisdiction. Further, Courboin failed to make any jurisdictional allegation in his complaint, and failed to make any jurisdictional argument during appeal. The lower court’s order dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants was therefore affirmed.

The case number is 14-11644.

Attorneys: Robert C. Courboin, pro se. Lawrence P. Ingram (Phelps Dunbar, LLP) for Candace Scott, Scott and Daly, LLC, and Candace Scott, LLC. Scott Allan Cole (Cole Scott & Kissane, PA) for Arthur J. Smith, and Arthur J. Smith Appraisals, LLC.

Companies: Scott and Daly, LLC; Candace Scott, LLC; Arthur J. Smith Appraisals, LLC

Cases: Antitrust RICO AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews