551 F. App'x 571
11th Cir.2014Background
- Corcel sued Ferguson, Line–Tec, and AKA for federal and Florida RICO violations based on alleged schemes to fraudulently obtain SBE certification and bid preferences.
- Corcel and LT were competitors in the plumbing supply trade; AKA was a prime contractor with Ferguson and LT as subcontractors.
- The County’s SBE Program awarded a 10% bid preference to SBEs, allegedly enabling LT to win contracts through false SBE certification.
- Corcel alleged LT was ineligible for SBE status, and Ferguson and LT created schemes to procure LT’s SBE certification by falsifying affidavits and documents.
- AKA, Ferguson, and LT allegedly formed an enterprise to utilize LT’s fraudulent SBE status to win construction contracts for mutual benefit, causing Corcel to lose bids.
- The district court dismissed, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the complaint plausibly alleged proximate causation and direct injury to Corcel at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proximate causation is adequately pled in federal civil RICO claims at the pleading stage | Corcel asserts a direct link between fraud and lost contracts. | Defendants contend causation is too indirect or attenuated. | Yes; complaint plausibly alleges direct injury sufficient for proximate causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (proximate cause requires direct relation and substantial causation in RICO)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (U.S. 2006) (directness and proximate causation principles for §1964(c))
- Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2010) (proximate causation in RICO involves direct relation to injury)
- Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1992) (outline of directness in causation analyses)
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (standards for pleading and proximate causation in RICO)
- Cox v. Admin’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994) (contextualizes proximate causation considerations in RICO/antitrust-like claims)