THE RICO ACT’S NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF PROCESS: IT’S ABOUT PERSONAL JURISDICTION TOO


The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a federal law designed by Congress to combat organized crime and “racketeering activities.” Section 1964 of the Act allows for a “private right of action” for those harmed by racketeering activity—in other words, anyone (not just the government) can enforce the Act by suing for damages under the RICO act. In fact, any damages awarded to the plaintiff are automatically tripled.

But because the RICO Act was originally targeted at organized crime, a person cannot merely target a single individual (or a single company) in a RICO lawsuit. The lawsuit must instead target a RICO “enterprise”—an organized group. Wherever a group of defendants is concerned, there is of course the possibility that the individuals might reside in different states. Would the plaintiff then be required to file separate lawsuits in different federal courts? No. Congress provided a solution for this: the “nationwide service of process” statute…which is about much more than service of process.

In Section 1965(b), Congress provided for service of process on, and personal jurisdiction over, RICO defendants residing outside of the federal court’s district. A plaintiff must simply show that the court has jurisdiction over at least one defendant and ‘the ends of justice’ require the out-of-district defendant to be sued in the district. This has typically been called the “nationwide service of process” statute. (Service of process refers to the serving of a defendant with a summons, notifying them that they are being sued, and a copy of the complaint.)

However, courts have made clear that Section 1965(b) is about much more than service of process; it is also about nationwide personal jurisdiction. 

“Personal jurisdiction” is the concept that a person can only be required to defend a lawsuit in a place (a state or a federal court district) where it would be fair to “hale” the person into court. A person living in Maine, for example, cannot normally be sued in California unless they conduct business in California or regularly travel to California, etc. To determine where a person can be sued, courts long ago developed a test called the “minimum contacts” test for personal jurisdiction—a person can only be sued in a state or federal district where they have “minimum contacts.” (What exactly constitutes “minimum contacts” is a subject for another long blog.)

But Section 1965(b) of the RICO Act is a “game changer” on personal jurisdiction. Courts have said that the traditional “minimum contacts” rule is thrown out the window where a RICO claim is involved. Instead, Section 1965(b) means that as long as a court has personal jurisdiction over one of the defendants, all of the other defendants, even if they reside in other states and have no “minimum contacts” with the territory covered by the court where the lawsuit is filed, can be sued there too… as long as the “ends of justice” require it. Butcher’s Union Local No. 498, United Food & Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538 (1986) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (b)).

California lies within the “circuit” of federal courts called the Ninth Circuit. Under Ninth Circuit law, the “ends of justice” test is generally satisfied when: (1) there is personal jurisdiction over at least one of the participants in the alleged multidistrict conspiracy; and (2) there is no other district in which a court will have personal jurisdiction over all of the alleged co-conspirators. Id. at 539; Lentz v. Woolley, 1989 WL 91148, at *14 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 1989).

This is an important and under-discussed aspect of the RICO Act. Whereas “treble damages” tends to generate the most discussion in terms of plaintiff incentives created by the Act, RICO’s jurisdictional advantage is significant. Notably, the convenience of the parties has no relevance to the “ends of justice” test. Butcher’s at 539. The Act inherently authorizes (and arguably encourages) jurisdiction in one venue over all members of a RICO conspiracy—whether or not living in different states.

The labelling of Section 1965(b) as “nationwide service of process” is somewhat of a misnomer. It is about so much more than the serving of mere paperwork. Service of process problems are often seen by plaintiffs as a temporary problems which can often be overcome with sufficient effort and resourcefulness…and perhaps a good private investigator. Often the solution remains in the plaintiff’s control.  

But lack of personal jurisdiction more often depends on factors outside the plaintiff’s control, including the discretion of the judge regarding the “minimum contacts” test. Section 1965(a) of the RICO Act tends to return some of the control back to plaintiffs in lawsuits where RICO is alleged. Section 1965(a) and the “ends of justice” test seem much more permissive, and less amenable to the subjective interpretation of the judge. The defense bar, on the other hand, must be aware of the importance of Section 1965 and bring any jurisdictional challenges under the correct test.

Anthony Lanza and Brodie Smith, litigation and trial attorneys licensed in California, have developed a focused practice area in federal business litigation and civil RICO. They can be contacted at (949) 221-0490.

The information in this blog post does not constitute legal advice, nor create and attorney-client relationship. Laws constantly change, and this information may become outdated; moreover, the information here is only a general overview and may omit some aspects of the law. It is provided for discussion purposes only; not to be relied upon by the reader in making any real-world decisions.

©2025 Lanza & Smith PLC. All rights reserved.

CONTACT US

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?