Niemi v. Lasshofer
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18589
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Unconventional real estate financing leads to litigation over a failed $250 million loan scheme.
- Mesatex, its subsidiaries, and investors allied with Mesatex engaged with Burgess and Lasshofer; a $2.18 million collateral/escrow arrangement was funded but the loan never materialized.
- The district court issued a June 2012 preliminary injunction freezing worldwide assets of Lasshofer and corporate defendants and requiring escrow of $2.18 million.
- Plaintiffs Niemi, Naegele, and Parnevik (Mesatex investors) sue under RICO and COCCA, naming Burgess, Lasshofer, and Innovatis Group as defendants.
- The defendants appeal, challenging the injunction as beyond authority and asserting lack of statutory standing; the district court’s subsequent October 2012 injunction is distinguished from the June order.
- The court ultimately vacates the June injunction and remands for lack of statutory standing under COCCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot. | Niemi argues October 2012 injunction moots June 2012 order. | Defendants contend June order remains independently effective. | Not moot; June order had independent effects and merits review. |
| Whether plaintiffs have statutory standing to pursue COCCA claims. | Niemi et al. have direct personal injury or proper assignment. | Standing should lie with Mesatex or the company; plaintiffs lack direct injury. | Statutory standing lacking; COCCA injunction vacated. |
| Whether the district court had authority to issue a worldwide injunction under COCCA/diversity. | COCCA authorizes broad asset-freezing relief; diversity permits state-law remedies. | Grupo Mexicano bars broad equitable injunctions absent pre-existing lien; issue unresolved. | Threshold standing governs; court does not reach merits on authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1999) (inherent authority limits; asset-freezing injunctions require statutory or inherent authority)
- Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1996) (limits of civil forfeiture and related remedies; sustainability of civil relief)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1945) (diversity-law limits on available equitable remedies; not all state remedies available in federal court)
- Hovey v. Ellott, 167 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1897) (civil contempt and rights to participate in litigation; traditional protection against automatic exclusion)
- Martin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2008) (immigration context; extension of fugitive disentitlement considered)
- United States v. Copar Pumice Co., 714 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013) (contempt and remedy principles in civil procedure)