D'Addario v. D'Addario, 901 F.3d 80

F. Francis D’Addario died in 1986 leaving a large estate; his son David (age 24 at appointment) and son Larry became co-Executors; the probate estate remained open for decades.
Virginia D’Addario (daughter and legatee; executrix of her mother’s estate) alleges David, with help from siblings and associates (Mary Lou, Garvey, Vitti) and entities (Red Knot, Silver Knot), looted the Estate through multiple schemes, leaving it insolvent.
Two categories of damages pleaded: (1) "lost debt" — the value of the inheritance Virginia and her mother’s estate would have received, and (2) "collection expenses" — ~$200,000 in legal fees Virginia incurred challenging David in Connecticut courts.
District Court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): held lost-debt RICO claims unripe; collection-expense claim ripe but insufficiently pleaded as to §1962(b) (acquisition/maintenance injury) and §1962(c) (enterprise), and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
Second Circuit: affirmed that lost-debt claim is unripe; held collection-expense claim is ripe, proximate causation adequately pleaded, §1962(b) adequately pleaded as to David, Garvey, and Red Knot, and §1962(c) adequately pleaded as to all six defendants (Estate also qualifies as an enterprise). Case vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (D’Addario)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of lost-debt RICO damages	Estate is effectively hopelessly insolvent; damages are definite now	RICO treble damages are speculative while probate proceedings are pending	Lost-debt claim unripe — amount too speculative while Estate remains open
Ripeness of collection-expense RICO damages	Legal fees already incurred are concrete, recoverable RICO damages	Partly speculative because future expenses may accrue	Collection-expense claim ripe — past fees are clear, definite injury
Proximate causation for collection expenses	Defendants’ RICO conduct destroyed Estate value and forced litigation to protect legatee interests	Injury alleged is to Estate, not directly to Virginia	Proximate causation satisfied — Virginia’s fees are a direct response to alleged RICO acts
Adequacy of pleading under §1962(b) and §1962(c)	Maintenance/acquisition injury and enterprise pleaded: Red Knot/Forbearance cemented David’s control; Estate may be an enterprise	Insufficiently pleaded acquisition/maintenance; no single association-in-fact enterprise tying all defendants; some defendants lack control or direction of enterprise	§1962(b) pleaded as to David, Garvey, Red Knot (maintenance of control); not pleaded as to Mary Lou, Vitti, Silver Knot. §1962(c) pleaded as to all six — Estate (association of Executors) qualifies as an enterprise and non-Executors plausibly participated in operation/management

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (speculative future damages do not accrue)
First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 1994) (RICO treble damages accrue only when amount becomes clear and definite)
Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 322 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2003) (lost-debt RICO claims unripe while parallel proceedings could affect recovery)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir. 1988) (legal fees may be recoverable RICO damages; lost-debt ripeness concerns)
Stochastic Decisions, Inc. v. DiDomenico, 995 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1993) (RICO claim unripe where related proceedings could resolve damages)
Discon, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp., 93 F.3d 1055 (2d Cir. 1996) (requirement that acquisition/maintenance injury be distinct from predicate-act injuries)
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (three-part test for association-in-fact enterprise: purpose, relationships, longevity)
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) (liability under §1962(c) requires participating in operation or management of enterprise)
First Capital Asset Mgmt. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2004) (outsiders may be liable under §1962(c) if they direct or participate in enterprise management)
Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279 (6th Cir. 1992) (beneficiaries’ injury from estate looting held not direct enough for RICO)