BOOKS AND OTHER SOURCES (Continued) Page General Accounting Office, Statistics on SEC's Enforcement Program, 35 Goldsmith & Keith, Civil RICO Abuse: The Allegations in Context, 1986 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 55, 103 (1984)..... 37 "How Lawless Are Big Companies?," Fortune, December 1, 1980, at 57 Hurst, The Growth of American Law 186 (1950) Jackson, The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy 152 (Vintage ed. 1941)... Kaysen & Turner, Antitrust Policy 17 (1959).. Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 61, 461 (Ohio University 1966).... 34 35 9 16 31 34 32 32 36 36 33 33 32 Newsweek, May 26, 1986, at 44 .... Note, Civil RICO: The Temptation and Impropriety of Judicial 38 Note, Congress Responds to Sedima: Is There a Contract Out on 38 Note, Insider Abuse and Criminal Misconduct in Financial Institutions: 32 BOOKS AND OTHER SOURCES (Continued) Page Note, Treble Damages Under RICO: Characterization and Computation, 61 Notre Dame L. Rev. 526, 533-34 (1986) Office of Comptroller of the Currency, Bank Failures: An Evaluation 33 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Annual Report to Congress, Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 462, 143, 272, 235 (2d ed. 1977) President's Commission on Law Enforcement & Admin. of Justice Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial ... Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the Time, Sept. 21, 1986 at 61 United States Chamber of Commerce, White Collar Crime: Everyone's U.S. Department of Justice Source Book of Criminal Justice Statistics 431 (1981) 8 33 8 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE This brief is submitted on behalf of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. ("TLPJ") and the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers ("NIMLO"). TLPJ is a public interest law firm devoted to representing victims of corporate or government abuse in cases that have the potential for advancing the state of the law, for educating the public, for modifying corporate or government behavior, or for improving the access of victims to justice and compensation for the wrongs that have been done them. Supported by over 650 trial lawyers throughout the United States, it is the only public interest law firm in the country dedicated to using plaintiffs' tort and trial law for the public good. TLPJ has pioneered in cases involving toxic dumping, water pollution, sex discrimination, experimentation using unwitting human guinea pigs, the protection and compensation of whistleblowers, lead paint poisoning of inner-city children, and unsafe automobiles and all-terrain vehicles. TLPJ has found the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. ("RICO"), to be one of the most effective remedies that a wide range of the American people, from small business through the elderly, have to obtain adequate civil redress for being cheated in the many criminal ways that the unscrupulous use, particularly large corporate interests. TLPJ wants to be sure that the access to the sort of justice that Congress provided in the civil remedy provisions of RICO is neither narrowed nor foreclosed, but rather is nurtured and interpreted in keeping with its broad remedial purpose. NIMLO joins in this amicus brief on behalf of the more than 1,900 local governments that are its members in support of Suffolk County, New York. NIMLO is a national organization comprised of municipalities and local government units which are political subdivisions of states. NIMLO's member municipalities have a vital interest in pursuing legal remedies, including the use of RICO, against those in regulated industries alleged to have committed fraud in securing higher rate approvals. Misrepresentations relied upon by local governments in granting rate increases create an unfair financial burden on local governments and their taxpayers. Such action presents a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of NIMLO's member municipalities; a threat which is exacerbated if the local government is crippled in the legal remedies available to it. Accordingly, NIMLO joins in this amicus brief to urge the court to permit civil RICO to be used in cases of fraud in connection with rate regulation. STATEMENT OF ISSUES Plaintiff-Appellant County of Suffolk ("Suffolk County") appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, C.J.) dated April 14, 1989 dismissing its RICO claims on the merits. Suffolk County raises four issues. Amici's interest extends to only one, restated as: Is there an implied exception to RICO for regulated activi- This brief demonstrates that the District Court was legally in error to so hold. Court. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Following a two month trial, a jury verdict was entered in favor of Suffolk County on certain of its claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. ("RICO"), and damages were awarded which, when trebled, totaled some $22.9 million. On April 14, 1989, however, the District Court entered "what amounts to delayed summary judgment (on the merits] in the form of ... judgment notwithstanding the verdict," pursuant to Rule 50, F.R.C.P.2/ ,3/ Reversing its prior ruling, the District Court dismissed Suffolk County's claims. It held that RICO impliedly did not extend to a fraud in connection with a rate regulation matter in light of the general legal doctrines of primary jurisdiction, abstention, federalism, and clear statement. The District Court noted that it saw no reason to believe that its decision would "frustrate RICO policy."5/ To the contrary, the District Court misconstrues RICO's plain text, undermines its express remedial purposes, and misapplies the legal doctrines that it relies on to create an implied exception to the statute. The Court's effort to limit the reach of RICO is unsupported by the statute, its legislative history, the doctrines relied upon, or the facts of this appeal. It should, therefore, be rejected. Amended Memorandum and Order - Application of RICO, Case No. 87-CV646, filed 1/ 2/ Id. 31 Suffolk County v. Long Island Lighting Co., 685 F. Supp. 38 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (denying motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). |