Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-09-01

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,027 chars
Even if we assume there is sufficient evidence of a RICO predicate act,
Appellants lack standing to challenge Magner’s conduct. Importantly, the only
evidence offered to support Appellants’ allegations are three affidavits from rental-
property owners who are not plaintiffs in these consolidated lawsuits. Appellants
have not shown that they themselves suffered any injury from the alleged extortion
scheme, and therefore their RICO-based extortion claims fail for lack of standing. See
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985) (“[T]he plaintiff only has
standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business
or property by the conduct constituting the violation.”); Bowman v. W. Auto Supply
Co., 985 F.2d 383, 384 (8th Cir. 1993) (Section 1964(c) “confers standing on any
individual who has experienced injury to his or her business or property that occurred
‘by reason of’ a RICO violation”); see also Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28
F.3d 1335, 1347 (2d Cir. 1994).