Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO NEWS: Attorney denied Supreme Court review of “frivolous” racketeering suit, (Jan 20, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

An Illinois attorney has been denied Supreme Court review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which dismissed as frivolous his racketeering claims against a law firm in a pending state defamation suit (Straw v. Kloecker, Dkt. 14-702).

Andrew Straw, an attorney with disabilities, allegedly sent letters to area businesses demanding monies because they lacked accessible parking spaces. A newspaper owned by Paddock Publications reported Straw’s actions, and some readers posted negative comments on the newspaper’s website. Straw sued the newspaper for defamation. In reliance on a statute requiring the reporting to Medicare of the details of settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments to Medicare recipients, Locke Lord, which represents Paddock, sent a letter requesting Straw’s personal information. Straw then sued Kloecker and Locke Lord, alleging that the firm engaged in an enterprise by sending the letter and threatening him if he did not disclose his private information, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The district court dismissed Straw’s civil RICO claim as frivolous, and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed, finding that the lower court properly determined that the letter from Locke Lord was mischaracterized as racketeering activity and instead represented a legitimate inquiry in connection with Straw’s suit against Paddock, for which the law firm was acting as counsel.

In his petition for certiorari, Straw asked the Supreme Court: (1) whether a law firm may demand from a person with disabilities, using threats, the private health insurance of the person, including access to the person’s private Medicare claims database information, with the express purpose of giving the information to a defamation defendant; (2) whether the letter in which the attorneys for the defamation defendant demanded private health information was a legitimate inquiry or instead fraudulent; (3) whether civil RICO enterprise and racketeering requirements were met; and (4) whether the treble amount sought in the trial court was appropriate.

Attorneys: Marc O. Beem (Miller Shakman & Beem, LLP) for John F. Kloecker. Andrew U.D. Straw, pro se.

News: RICO