CGC HOLDING CO., LLC v. Hutchens, 824 F. Supp. 2d 1193

Plaintiffs allege a Canadian‑based loan‑fee scheme masterminded by Sandy Hutchens and participated in by related entities and professionals.
Plaintiffs claim five claims: RICO, conversion, negligent misrepresentation, constructive trust, unjust enrichment.
Defendants include Hutchens family, alter ego entities, Canadian funding and U.S. counsel;सी the action centers on advance loan processing fees.
Court resolves nine pending motions, including personal jurisdiction, abstention, and RICO extraterritoriality issues; class certification reserved.
Colorado long‑arm jurisdiction is analyzed for domestic and non‑domestic defendants under state law and Rule 4(k)(2).
Court denies most jurisdictional motions but grants some, and dismisses or stays other motions as noted in the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Colorado long‑arm statute grants jurisdiction	Pltf argues sufficient Colorado contacts exist	Defendants contend lack of minimum contacts	Partial jurisdiction established for certain defendants
Whether Rule 4(k)(2) authorizes extraterritorial jurisdiction over non‑domestic defendants	RICO nationwide service supports extraterritorial reach	No general jurisdiction; extraterritorial reach limited	Rule 4(k)(2) can apply if consistent with due process; some non‑domestic defendants subjected to jurisdiction
Whether RICO applies extraterritorially	RICO acts within the U.S. marketplace; scheme targeted U.S. victims	Extrinsic activity should not be subject to U.S. RICO	RICO liability not purely extraterritorial; claims can proceed where United States focus exists
Whether Meisels and Blaney McMurtry LLP may be dismissed for failure to state a claim	Meisels participated in Colorado loan processing	Extrinsic, insufficient particularity for RICO plausibility	Denied; dismissal denied for lack of stateable claims but with caution on RICO pleadings
Whether the pleadings against Gaché and Broad & Cassel survive Rule 12(b)(6) and abstention	Gaché aided in the scheme; Broad & Cassel as counsel; pure conclusory pleadings insufficient	Insufficient facts; require particularity for RICO; abstention warranted	Gaché/Broad & Cassel motion to dismiss granted in part; abstention denied on broader grounds

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional torts harming out‑of‑state residents subject to jurisdiction)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts required for in personam jurisdiction)
Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, 123 P.3d 1187 (Colo. 2005) (delineates specific vs general jurisdiction under Colorado law)
Jenner & Block v. District Court, 590 P.2d 964 (Colo. 1979) (long‑arm statute reaches full extent permitted by due process)
Peay v. BellSouth Medical Assistance Plan, 205 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2000) (five‑factor test for due‑process in nationwide service context)
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2000) (Rule 4(k)(2) extraterritorial jurisdiction discussion)
Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (service of process tailored to federal question cases may extend abroad)
Norex Petroleum Limited v. Access Industries, Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (extraterritorial application of RICO examined)
U.S. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 471 (D.D.C. 2010) (post‑Morrison framework for interpretation of extraterritorial effects)
Cedeno v. Intech Group, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (claims essentially extraterritorial in focus not subject to US RICO)