40 F.4th 432
6th Cir.2022Background
- Peters Broadcast (Indiana) entered a Merchant Agreement with 24 Capital, LLC (New York) on Feb. 21, 2019; 24 Capital obtained a judgment by confession in New York state court on May 21, 2019.
- Peters Broadcast sued 24 Capital and Jason Sankov (Florida) in the Southern District of Ohio alleging a RICO conspiracy and related Ohio state-law claims, including class-wide claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction (also raising venue and Rule 12(b)(6) defenses); the magistrate judge dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied class certification as moot.
- The district court confronted a circuit split whether 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) or § 1965(d) authorizes nationwide service/personal jurisdiction in civil RICO cases and adopted the majority “forum-state” approach under § 1965(b).
- The court held § 1965(b) permits nationwide service only when at least one defendant has minimum contacts with the forum; Peters Broadcast failed to plead specific facts showing Ohio contacts by 24 Capital or Sankov, so personal jurisdiction (and pendent jurisdiction for state claims) was lacking.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Peters Broadcast’s request to adopt the minority § 1965(d) approach and deeming the transfer argument forfeited and without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which § of 18 U.S.C. § 1965 governs nationwide service/personal jurisdiction in civil RICO cases? | § 1965(d) provides nationwide service based on a defendant’s national contacts. | § 1965(b) controls; nationwide service extends only when an initial defendant has forum contacts and the "ends of justice" require joining others. | Adopted § 1965(b) (forum‑state approach): nationwide summonses available only if at least one defendant has minimum contacts with the forum. |
| Did the court have personal jurisdiction over 24 Capital and Sankov in Ohio? | Alleged injurious conduct occurred in S.D. Ohio; website presence and general allegations establish contacts. | No purposeful availment or Ohio contacts; Merchant Agreement and judgment arose in New York; declarations show no Ohio business. | Plaintiff failed to plead specific facts establishing minimum contacts with Ohio; no personal jurisdiction under § 1965(a)/(b). |
| Should the district court have transferred the case to the Northern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1406? | Transfer to Indiana was appropriate (first raised in reply on appeal). | (Implicit) No basis for transfer; defendants lack contacts with Indiana. | Argument forfeited for being raised first on appeal; even if considered, transfer unjustified due to lack of allegations of Indiana contacts. |
| Effect on pendent state-law claims when RICO jurisdiction fails? | Pendent jurisdiction could support state claims. | If RICO claim lacks jurisdiction, pendent jurisdiction fails. | State-law claims dismissed because RICO claims lacked personal jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction was not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1998) (reads § 1965 as requiring at least one defendant with forum contacts before nationwide service on others)
- Republic of Pan. v. BCCI Holdings (Lux.) S.A., 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 1997) (adopts minority view that § 1965(d) provides for nationwide service)
- ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 1997) (joins Republic of Panama in treating § 1965(d) as authorizing nationwide service)
- Laurel Gardens, LLC v. Mckenna, 948 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2020) (joins forum‑state approach: § 1965(b) governs nationwide service conditioned on at least one defendant’s forum contacts)
- Cory v. Aztec Steel Bldg., Inc., 468 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2006) (adopts § 1965(b) forum‑state interpretation)
- FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (endorses forum‑state approach to § 1965)
- Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986) (early case recognizing § 1965(b) as authorizing service beyond the initial district)
- Lisak v. Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., 834 F.2d 668 (7th Cir. 1987) (identifies § 1965(b) as creating jurisdiction by authorizing service on other parties)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes the minimum‑contacts due process test)
- Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) (discusses standard for establishing minimum contacts and reasonableness analysis)