City of New York v. Bello, 579 F. App'x 15

The City of New York sued online cigarette dealers, suppliers, customers, and downstream sellers under the CCTA and RICO, alleging a scheme centered on the Chavez defendants.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants Charles Wells and pro se Pedro Bello, finding the City could not prove an association-in-fact enterprise of which they were members.
The district court found substantial evidence that Wells (and connections involving Bello) knowingly facilitated illegal cigarette sales and knew about the Chavez defendants’ wider operations.
The City appealed the grant of summary judgment as to Wells and Bello, arguing either an association-in-fact was not required for a RICO conspiracy or that sufficient evidence existed to show an association-in-fact.
The district court reserved judgment on whether the Chavez defendants alone could constitute an enterprise and did not address some alternative defenses raised by Wells (e.g., proximate cause/Hemi Group).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an association-in-fact enterprise is required to prove a RICO §1962(d) conspiracy	City: Not required; conspiracy liability can attach without proving an enterprise	Wells/Bello: City must prove an association-in-fact enterprise including them	Court: Enterprise not required for conspiracy; City raised genuine factual disputes about defendants’ knowing agreement to facilitate the scheme, so summary judgment vacated
Whether evidence creates a genuine dispute that Wells/Bello agreed to facilitate RICO violations	City: Evidence shows Wells and Bello knowingly facilitated and were aware of the Chavez scheme	Defs: Lack of membership/association and other alternative defenses (e.g., proximate cause)	Court: Evidence suffices to preclude summary judgment on conspiracy; factual disputes remain
Whether summary judgment can be affirmed on alternative grounds (e.g., proximate cause/Hemi)	City: Opposition to alternative defenses; focuses on conspiracy sufficiency	Wells: Urges affirmance on alternative grounds, including lack of proximate cause under Hemi	Court: Declined to decide alternative grounds; remanded for district court to consider them in the first instance
Whether Bello may be summarily affirmed because he raised no independent arguments	City: Sought reversal of summary judgment as to Bello	Bello: Pro se; no independent arguments beyond Wells’ positions	Court: Vacated summary judgment as to Bello for same reasons as to Wells

Lederman v. New York City Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 731 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366 (2d Cir.) (mens rea standard for RICO conspiracy in civil context)
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S.) (RICO conspirator liability even if incapable of committing substantive offense)
United States v. Applins, 637 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (enterprise not required for §1962(d); discussion of conspiracy liability)
United States v. Pizzonia, 577 F.3d 455 (2d Cir.) (elements of RICO substantive provisions and conspiracy)
Guippone v. BH S & B Holdings LLC, 737 F.3d 221 (2d Cir.) (remand principle when appellate court does not decide unraised district-court issues)
Hemi Group v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (proximate-cause requirement in RICO/antitrust contexts)