Grimmett, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Siragusa v. Brown

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Richard Sauber (on behalf of the Petitioners)
Philip A. Lacovara (on behalf of the Respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
95-1723
Petitioner: 
Grimmett, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Siragusa
Respondent: 
Brown
Opinion: 
519 U.S. 233 (1997)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Grimmett, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Siragusa v. Brown , 519 U.S. 233 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1723)
Facts of the Case: 

In a divorce settlement, Joanne Siragusa forfeited her entitlement to one-half of her ex-husband's ownership share in Heart Institute of Nevada (HIN) in exchange for monthly payments. In 1987, ex-husband Vincent Siragusa defaulted on the monthly payments, declared bankruptcy, and relinquished his ownership share in HIN by reorganizing HIN into Cardiology Associates of Nevada. Joanne alleged that Vincent had filed bankruptcy in order to evade monthly payments and subsequently reorganized his company in order to undo her collateral in HIN. In 1994, Joanne sought a three-fold reimbursement for damages caused by Vincent's fraudulent actions in accordance with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO). Tom Grimmett, the original trustee for the divorce settlement, prosecuted on behalf of Joanne. Patricia Brown, the consultant responsible for reorganizing HIN, defended Vincent.

The District Court dismissed Joanne's suit because it was based on actions that started in 1987. (RICO claims expire after four years.) Grimmett argued that the time limit should not have begun until Joanne discovered Vincent's "pattern" of fraud in 1990. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Joanne's first court action against Vincent in 1989 signified the beginning of the time limit and thus her claim had expired. Grimmett appealed to the Supreme Court, citing disagreements among Circuit Courts as to when the four-year time limit began.

Question: 

Does the four-year time limit on a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 begin after a pattern of racketeering activity has been discovered by the plaintiff?

Conclusion: 

Unanswered. The unanimous Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Per Curiam with Argument