Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Civil Rico Claims

In 1970 Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)I as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act. 2 Until 1982, however, no court considered whether state courts share concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over civil 3 RICO claims.4 Since then many courts, both state and federal, have addressed this issue, and they have reached conflicting conclusions.5 No federal appellate court has yet directly considered the issue.6 Under the Supreme Court's opinion in Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.,7 analysis of state-court jurisdiction over a federal cause of action "begins with the presumption that state courts enjoy concur-1 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, § 901(a), 18 U.S.C. 99 1961-68 (1982 & Supp.IV 1986). 2 Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat.922 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 7, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 42, 45, 46, and 47 U.S.C.). 3 RICO authorizes provides both criminal prosecutions for violations, 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (1982 & Supp.IV 1986), and a private cause of action, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (1982).4 Luebke v. Marine Nat'l Bank, 567 F. Supp.1460 (E.D. Wis.1983) (holding jurisdiction over civil RICO concurrent).5 For cases holdingjurisdiction over RICO exclusively federal, see Spence v. Flynt, 647 F. Supp.1266 (D.Wyo.1986); Broadway v. San Antonio Shoe, Inc., 643 F. Supp.584 (S.D. Tex.1986); Massey v. City of Oklahoma City, 643 F. Supp.81 (W.D. Okla.1986); Kinsey v. Nestor Exploration Ltd., 604 F. Supp.1365 (E.D. Wash.1985); County of Cook v. Midcon Corp., 574 F. Supp.902 (N.D. Ill.1983), aff'd on other grounds, 773 F.2d 892 (7th Cir.1985); Washington Courte Condominium Ass'n-Four v. Washington-Golf Corp., 150 Ill.App.3d 681, 501 N.E.2d 1290 (1986); Levinson v.American Accident Reinsurance Group, 503 A.2d 632 (Del.Ch. 1985); Thrall Car Mfg.Co. v. Lindquist, 145 Il.App.3d 712,495 N.E.2d 1132 (1986); Maplewood Bank and Trust Co. v. Acorn, Inc., 207 NJ.Super.590, 504 A.2d 819 (NJ.Super.Ct.Law Div.1985); Greenview Trading Co. v. Hershman & Leicher, P.C., 108 A.D.2d 468,489 N.Y.S.2d 502 (N.Y.App.Div.1985); Main Rusk Assocs.v. Interior Space Constructors, Inc., 699 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Ct.App.1985).For cases holding that states share concurrent jurisdiction over civil RICO claims, see Contemporary Services Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 655 F. Supp.885 (C.D. Cal.1987); Carman v. First Nat'l Bank, 642 F. Supp.862 (W.D. Ky.1986); HMK Corp. v. Walsey, 637 F. Supp.710 (E.D. Va.1986); Karel v. Kroner, 635 F. Supp.725 (N.D. Ill.1986); Cianci v. Superior Court (Poppingo), 40 Cal.3d 903, 710 P.2d 375, 221 Cal.Rptr.575 (1985).6 The Seventh Circuit, however, in County of Cook v. Midcon Corp. noted in dictum that if it had reached the issue, it would have been reluctant to uphold the district court's finding of exclusive federal jurisdiction over RICO claims.773 F.2d