United States v. Paul Bergrin
650 F.3d 257
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Bergrin is a New Jersey defense attorney who allegedly led an association-in-fact enterprise (BLE) from 2003–2009.
- The November 10, 2009 grand jury returned a 39-count superseding indictment charging Bergrin and seven co-defendants.
- BLE allegedly included five individuals and four entities (PB&V, Law Office of Paul W. Bergrin, PC, Premium Realty, Isabella’s International Restaurant) acting as a continuing unit.
- The six alleged racketeering schemes allegedly furthered common goals such as profit, client base expansion, witness tampering, murder, bribery, and drug trafficking.
- Counts alleged both RICO (§1962(c)) and conspiracy to violate RICO (§1962(d)); VICAR charges (§1959(a)) were included for some defendants.
- The District Court dismissed Count One (RICO) and related VICAR counts; the Government appeals, arguing the indictment suffices to charge a RICO enterprise and pattern.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the indictment plead an association-in-fact enterprise under RICO | United States contends BLE is a valid enterprise | Bergrin argues no distinct enterprise or pattern exists | Yes; BLE adequately pleads an enterprise under Turkette/ Boyle + |
| Does the indictment plead a pattern of racketeering activity | United States asserts multiple related predicates show pattern | Bergrin argues predicates are disparate and lack pattern | Yes; the predicates are related and show continuity under H.J., Inc. |
| Did the district court err by dismissing on evidentiary/structural grounds | United States urges accepting allegations as true, not weighing evidence | Bergrin asserts lack of enterprise/pattern prevents indictment | Yes; district court erred by weighing the facts and by improper focus on structure |
| May disparate predicates form a valid RICO pattern when tied to a common enterprise | United States shows common purpose and ongoing unit | Bergrin argues lack of unified purpose | Yes; pattern may arise from varied predicates within a single enterprise |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise is a group with a common purpose and ongoing conduct)
- Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237 (2009) (broad interpretation of enterprise; no requirement of a structured organization)
- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) (employee distinct from enterprise; separateness suffices)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (defining pattern; relatedness and continuity elements)
- National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994) (broad federal RICO scope; not limited by narrow definitions)
- United States v. Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002) (statutory elements; sufficiency beyond mere recitation)
- United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (pleading standards for RICO elements)
- United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1983) (enterprise concept prior to Boyle; superseded by later cases)
- Masters v. United States, 924 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir. 1991) (diverse predicates can form a pattern under RICO)
- United States v. DeLaurentis, 230 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 2000) (indictment sufficiency limited to charging offense elements)
- United States v. Besmajian, 910 F.2d 1153 (3d Cir. 1990) (indictment need not prove evidence at pleading stage)