866 F. Supp. 2d 525
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) sues Victor Dahdaleh for RICO, conspiracy, fraud, and civil conspiracy related to a bribery scheme with Alcoa entities in Pennsylvania.
- Dahdaleh is a non-resident (Canada/UK) arguing lack of personal jurisdiction over him in this district.
- Alba relies on the Pennsylvania absent co-conspirator doctrine to assert jurisdiction over Dahdaleh based on acts in Pennsylvania by co-conspirators.
- Alba contends RICO claim should not be dismissed as extraterritorial application, consistent with Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
- Dahdaleh moves to dismiss alleging pleading inadequacy for RICO and lack of state-law claims; Alba contends claim details and particularity are sufficient.
- Court denies Dahdaleh's motion on all counts, allowing RICO and state-law claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Dahdaleh. | Alba asserts absent co-conspirator doctrine applies. | Dahdaleh argues no sufficient minimum contacts with PA. | Personal jurisdiction over Dahdaleh denied? Actually denied the motion; jurisdiction established. |
| Whether Alba's RICO claim is barred by extraterritoriality under Morrison. | RICO claim seeks in-forum acts and effects; Morrison does not bar. | RICO cannot be applied extraterritorially to require in-forum conduct. | RICO claim survives Morrison challenge. |
| Whether Alba pleaded a plausible RICO claim with a common purpose among enterprise members. | Alcoa defendants directed bribery and benefits to Alba through deception. | Lack of particularity showing agreement among Alcoa members. | RICO pleading deemed sufficient; plausibility found. |
| Whether Alba's state-law fraud and civil conspiracy claims are adequately pleaded. | Amended Complaint contains extensive allegations of misrepresentation and conspiracy. | Claims are conclusory and lack sufficient elements. | State-law claims survive and proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santana Prod., Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., 14 F.Supp.2d 710 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (absent co-conspirator jurisdiction where substantial acts occur in forum)
- Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, 846 F.Supp. 374 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (consolidated analysis of co-conspirator jurisdiction)
- Goodson v. Maggi, 797 F.Supp.2d 604 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (cited for co-conspirator jurisdiction doctrine)
- Ethanol Partners v. Wiener, Zuckerbrot, Weiss & Brecher, 635 F.Supp.4 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (foundational co-conspirator jurisdiction discussion)
- In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig., 92 F.R.D. 398 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (forum acts basis for jurisdiction over conspirators)
- Temtex Prods., Inc. v. Kramer, 479 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 1984) (conspiracy acts in forum justify jurisdiction over participants)