U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 96— RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

18 U.S.C. § 1965

Venue and process

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.(b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal thereof.(c) In any civil or criminal action or proceeding instituted by the United States under this chapter in the district court of the United States for any judicial district, subpenas issued by such court to compel the attendance of witnesses may be served in any other judicial district, except that in any civil action or proceeding no such subpena shall be issued for service upon any individual who resides in another district at a place more than one hundred miles from the place at which such court is held without approval given by a judge of such court upon a showing of good cause.(d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 944.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 546 cases (166 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Peters Broadcast Eng'g, Inc. v. 24 Capital, LLC, 40 F.4th 432 (6th Cir. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peters Broadcast Eng'g, Inc. v. 24 Capital, LLC, 40 F.4th 432 (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 13× “We affirm, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (b) governs service over out-of- district defendants and requires that at least one defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state.”
Laurel Gardens, LLC v. Timothy McKenna, 948 F.3d 105 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “We agree with Plaintiffs that 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (b) (and not 18 U.S.C. §1965 (d)) 3 governs the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case and that they satisfy the statutory (and constitutional) requirements for the District Court to exercise such jurisdiction over the Isken…”
Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, 36 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D.S.C. 1999). · cites it 13× “18 U.S.C. § 1965 : Nationwide Service of Process The Sealy Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a colorable claim against them under RICO and so should not be able to take advantage of its nationwide service of process provisions.”
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “(3) Expanded Venue and Service of Process Provisions in Other Statutes Are of Little Assistance in Construing Section 12 In reaching a different conclusion, the district court appears to have relied, in part, on other statutes containing special venue and service of process…”
Brown Ex Rel. Rhiner v. Kerkhoff, 504 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. Iowa 2007). · cites it 8× “18 U.S.C. § 1965 . b. Analysis. The Court must first decide whether RICO potentially confers jurisdiction by permitting service of process on the nonresident Defendants and, if so, must decide if the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident Defendants…”
AGS Int'l Servs. S.A. v. Newmont USA Ltd., 346 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 7× “Third, the plaintiffs contend that all of the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia pursuant to the RICO Act’s nationwide service of process provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1965 . 16 Id. at 12-15 . Fourth, according to the plaintiffs, the So-dexho…”
Cory v. Aztec Steel Bldg., Inc., 468 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (d). The defendants counter that the district court followed the better reasoned decisions of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, which hold that RICO, when raised in the proper venue, extends personal jurisdiction into “any judicial district of the…”
FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Markets, Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “was permissible, even in the absence of minimum contacts by IFX with the District,” pursuant to RICO’s “nationwide service of process provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (d).” Id. 13 But IFX counters that under RICO “at least one defendant must have minimum contacts with the District…”
Gatz v. Ponsoldt, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (D. Neb. 2003). · cites it 16× “DISCUSSION Plaintiffs claim that personal jurisdiction and proper venue exist by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (a), (b), and (d) and 28 U.”
Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 765 (N.D. Tex. 2008). · cites it 6× “Rolls-Royce responded that personal jurisdiction was premised on RICO’s nationwide service of process provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1965 , and that the court also had specific personal jurisdiction over all defendants under the Texas long arm statute, Tex.”
Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., 9 F.4th 392 (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 5 , The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (d), and The False Claims Act, 31 U.”
Soltex Polymer Corp. v. Fortex Indus., Inc., 590 F. Supp. 1453 (E.D.N.Y 1984). · cites it 8× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (d). Moreover, “[wjhere such nationwide service of process is authorized, a federal district court’s jurisdiction is ‘coextensive with the boundaries of the United States, [and] due process requires only that a defendant in a federal suit have minimum…”
Show all 546 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) — 2 cases
Anchor Glass Container Corp. v. Stand Energy Corp., 711 F. Supp. 325 (S.D. Miss. 1989).
Berry v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 808 F. Supp. 1106 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) — 2 cases
DOES 1-60 v. Repub. Health Corp., 669 F. Supp. 1511 (D. Nev. 1987).
Yalcin Ayasli v. Sezgin Baran Korkmaz, Kamil Feridun Ozkaraman, Fatih Akol, SBK Holdings A.S., SBK Holdings, USA, Inc., Bugaraj Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S., & Mega Varlik Yonetim, A.S., 2020 DNH 131 (D.N.H. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d) — 2 cases
Thieret Fam., LLC v. Brown (E.D. Mo. 2021).
D'ambly v. Exoo (D.N.J. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.