1:25-cv-20017
S.D. Fla.Aug 18, 2025Background
- Melanie Damian, as court-appointed Receiver for Surge Capital Ventures LLC, brought a class action against Deel, Inc., DPayments, LLC, and Jeremy Berger.
- The complaint alleged the defendants violated RICO (18 U.S.C. §§ 1960, 1962) by operating an unlicensed money transmission business and failing to comply with BSA/AML/OFAC requirements.
- Plaintiff claimed the defendants’ business model intentionally avoided necessary licensure and compliance to gain market share, causing alleged injury to Surge and others.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing lack of standing, absence of a distinct RICO enterprise, and insufficient pleading of predicate acts and injury.
- The court evaluated both Article III standing and RICO-specific standing as threshold issues, as well as the sufficiency of the alleged RICO enterprise.
- The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and closed the case, finding both the lack of standing and the absence of a distinct RICO enterprise dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Surge was harmed by defendants’ lack of money transmission licenses | Lack of licensure is not a concrete injury for standing | Lack of licensure alone isn’t a cognizable injury |
| RICO Standing (Injury to Business) | Defendants’ actions injured Plaintiff and the proposed class | No concrete or specific business/property injury alleged | Vague, conclusory injury claims insufficient |
| RICO Enterprise (Distinctness) | Deel, DPayments, and Berger together form a RICO enterprise | Only affiliated parties acting within unified corporate structure | No distinct RICO enterprise alleged |
| Predicate Acts/Pattern | Engaged in unlawful payments, aiding and abetting violations | Predicate acts not pleaded with sufficient factual support | Not addressed (no standing and no enterprise found) |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (explains constitutional standing requirements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must state plausible claims with sufficient facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for dismissing complaints for lack of factual allegations)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (statutory violation without concrete harm doesn't confer standing)
- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) (RICO requires a person and enterprise to be distinct)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (definition of a RICO enterprise)