Sun Savings and Loan Association, a Corporation v. Daniel W. Dierdorff Mary Dierdorff

Appellant Sun Savings & Loan Association (“Sun”) brought an action against appellee Daniel Dierdorff (“Dierdorff”), Sun’s former president, alleging that Dier-dorff violated the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). 1 The alleged racketeering activity consisted of four letters written by Dierdorff to various entities. In the letters, Dierdorff allegedly sought to cover up *190 a scheme in which he received kickbacks from Sun’s loan customers. Dierdorff moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Sun’s RICO claims were invalid. The district court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. Sun appeals that ruling. We reverse on the ground that the complaint adequately alleges a RICO cause of action.

I.BACKGROUND

Dierdorff served as Sun’s president and chief executive officer from June 1980 until October 1984. Sun asserts that during his tenure Dierdorff solicited and received kickbacks from Sun’s customers for whom he approved large loans. On February 3, 1983, Dierdorff allegedly created a secret checking account at Sun under the fictitious name of “Dan Danzer.” Between February 3, 1983, and March 15, 1984,…

concurring in the result.

I concur in the result, but only for the following reasons.

In this RICO case, my panel colleagues have made thorough and conscientious efforts. RICO is for me (and many, if not most, of my district court colleagues) an agonizingly difficult and confusing area of *197 the law. Only with the greatest reluctance do I concur in the result here. My less than enthusiastic support stems from a general resistance to further the extension of civil RICO.

This case illustrates that extension through the continued federalization of state common law remedies. Dierdorff’s alleged kickback scheme simply amounted to fraud until it began to be exposed, as it unraveled. Dierdorff (in whose head, presumably, there were dancing visions of profits from his alleged shabby scheme, rather than visions of the arcane nuances of RICO) provided Sun with colorable grounds for RICO’s civil treble damages by sending four letters in which he sought to deny his wrongdoing to entities other than Sun. Thus Dierdorff s predicate acts, arguably committed after the fact and certainly not essential to the scheme, provide the bridge between common law fraud and RICO.

Unfortunately, the…

825 F.2d 187 56 USLW 2110 , 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 808 , RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6710 SUN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel W. DIERDORFF; Mary Dierdorff, Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-5811. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 7, 1987. Decided Aug. 7, 1987. David E. Lundin, Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Virginia R. Gilson, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before PREGERSON and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Sun Savings & Loan Association ("Sun") brought an action against appellee Daniel Dierdorff ("Dierdorff"), Sun's former president, alleging that Dierdorff violated the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). 1 The alleged racketeering activity consisted of four letters written by Dierdorff to various entities. In the letters, Dierdorff allegedly sought to cover up a scheme in which he received kickbacks from Sun's loan customers. Dierdorff moved…