U1IT4Less, Inc. v. FedEx Corp., 871 F.3d 199

BikerGear (UlIT4Less, Inc.) sold motorcycle gear online and used FedEx Ground to ship to U.S. and Canadian customers from 2008–2010.
BikerGear alleged two schemes: (1) Upweighting — FedEx rated some packages heavier than actual, causing overcharges; (2) Canadian Customs — wrongful customs charges caused by a software glitch.
BikerGear sued FedEx Corp., FedEx Services, and FedEx Ground under the ICCTA (49 U.S.C. § 13708) and civil RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),(d)); district court dismissed some claims and after discovery granted FedEx summary judgment on RICO claims.
District courts: Judge Seibel dismissed the ICCTA claim at 12(b)(6) for failure to allege a discrepancy between billed and actually assessed charges; Judge Forrest later granted summary judgment on RICO, finding plaintiffs failed the RICO distinctness requirement.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed: (1) § 13708(b) requires disclosed charges to match the charges actually assessed (not a plaintiff’s notion of what should have been charged); (2) separate incorporation alone does not satisfy RICO distinctness where parent and subsidiaries operate as a unified corporate structure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 13708(b) covers BikerGear’s billing dispute	§13708(b) forbids false/misleading documentation of the "actual" charges; FedEx’s documented weights and customs charges were false relative to what should have been charged	§13708(b) requires documents to reflect the charges the carrier actually assessed; plaintiff admits FedEx billed and charged the invoiced amounts	Affirmed dismissal: §13708(b) protects against presenting one amount and charging another; BikerGear did not allege such a discrepancy
Whether RICO §1962(c) distinctness requirement is met by separate incorporation of FedEx entities	Separate legal incorporation of FedEx Corp./FedEx Services from FedEx Ground makes the "person" distinct from the "enterprise"	Separate incorporation alone is insufficient where parent and subsidiaries operate under a single corporate consciousness and ordinary business relations	Affirmed summary judgment: plaintiff failed to show enterprises were distinct beyond mere separate incorporation

Cedric Kushner Promotions Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court) (distinguishes legal separateness in the context of an individual owner and his wholly owned corporation)
Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC, 720 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.) (parent and wholly owned subsidiary acting as unified corporate structure fail distinctness requirement)
Discon, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp., 93 F.3d 1055 (2d Cir.) (parent and subsidiaries acting as a single corporate consciousness are not distinct for RICO)
Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (2d Cir.) (corporation not distinct from enterprise consisting of itself and its employees)
Securitron Magnalock Corp. v. Schnabolk, 65 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.) (examples where separate entities may be distinct when they operate independently and use separate status to further illegal goals)
ClassicStar Mare Lease Litig., 727 F.3d 473 (6th Cir.) (separate incorporation alone insufficient; courts require more to satisfy distinctness)
Solo v. United Parcel Serv. Co., 819 F.3d 788 (6th Cir.) (interpretation of §13708(b) as requiring documented amounts to reflect amounts actually assessed)
Bennett v. U.S. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 770 F.2d 308 (2d Cir.) (same-entity issue: entity cannot be both RICO person and enterprise)
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court) (definition of a RICO enterprise as an ongoing organization)