Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST— M.D. Fla.: Antitrust and RICO claims against attorneys, appraiser in marriage dissolution case dismissed as frivolous, (Feb 28, 2014)

By Edward L. Puzzo, J.D.

The federal district court in Tampa has dismissed Sherman Act and RICO claims brought by a party to a New Jersey marriage dissolution matter against his spouse’s attorneys, his own attorneys, and an appraisal firm (Courboin v. Scott, February 27, 2014, Moody, J.). The claims were dismissed for improper venue, for failure to state valid claims, and for being patently frivolous

In the aftermath of 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. Courboin’s previous attempts to maintain actions in New Jersey state court, arising from the dissolution matter, were dismissed. Thus, he brought the instant action in federal court as a “court of last resort.” (Separately, Courboin brought an action in this federal district court against the New Jersey Bar Association, the judge who presided over the dissolution proceedings, and the governor of New Jersey. The court dismissed that entire case with prejudice.)

Courboin’s ex-wife’s attorneys responded that neither they nor the alleged acts had any substantial contact with Florida, where the plaintiff lived. They moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The appraisal firm moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim for violation of the RICO statute and the Sherman Act.

Venue. Venue should always lie where the federal court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the court explained. Here, the court noted, the plaintiff did not allege that any of the defendants resided in Florida, nor that any of the alleged activities constituting the RICO claim or the alleged violations of the Sherman Act occurred in Florida. Indeed, the entire point of the complaint was that the defendants were allegedly victimizing citizens of New Jersey, by taking actions solely in New Jersey state courts. Therefore, venue was improper. Under such circumstances, the case must either be dismissed or transferred to the proper jurisdiction. But since the case failed to state a cause of action, the court refused to transfer the matter to a different court.

RICO and Sherman Act. In order to state a RICO claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show defendants conducted an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. In this action, the plaintiff alleged that the number of interrogatories he answered in discovery were excessive, that his attorney’s representation was unsatisfactory, that the charges for the appraisal services of the marital home were excessive, and that the attorneys received a portion of the fees for the appraisal services.

These allegations referenced personal experiences with a family court, not a pattern of prohibited activity, the court stated. The allegations that the defendants were working in concert was without factual support. Without facts to support his allegations, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted under RICO, the court ruled. Similarly, the plaintiff failed to plead allegations that would support a claim under either Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act, the court found. Consequently, that claim had to be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Frivolous complaint. A district court may, on its own motion, properly dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss, where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants. While a court must generally provide notice of its intent to dismiss before dismissing the action sua sponte, notice is not required if the complaint is patently frivolous. “The instant complaint is patently frivolous, baseless, vexatious, and harassing and sua sponte dismissal is therefore warranted,” the court ruled.

The case is Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-3109-T-30TGW.

Attorneys: Jason Paul Stearns (Phelps Dunbar, LLP) for Candace Scott.

Cases: FloridaNews Antitrust RICO