Posts by alexadmin alexadmin:
Court Decision Settles Outstanding Issues in MJ Management’s Favor
Posted on: 23 Mar 2026
On March 18, 2026, the court entered an order granting MJ Management’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of MJ Management v. Kelly, (Whatcom Count Sup. Ct. No. 25-2-02688-37). The decision entered by Judge Jennifer Slattery, both granted MJ Management’s request for a judgment requiring payment of unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees by the Defendant but also resolved a number of legal questions that remained unanswered by the court over the last few years. The decision established MJ Management’s right to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees during the time that MJ Management operated at Homestead under its Management and Lease Agreement, as well as its right to attorney’s fees and costs. Equally important was the court’s sound rejection of various defenses that had been raised by Kelly’s legal counsel, which had been communicated to Homestead homeowners in the months following the decision in years-long Hillius v. 18 Paradise litigation. A copy of the Motion can be found at the bottom of this article. The Defendant, Kelly, was represented by attorneys Matthew Davis and K. David Andersson, the same attorneys that had represented class members in the Hillius litigation. For over a year since the entry of final orders in that case, several of the class representatives and their counsel had raised objections to MJ Management’s right to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees and continued to encourage homeowners to refuse to pay the amounts they owned. The Court’s decision in MJ Management v. Kelly soundly rejected these arguments and clears the way to MJ Management’s collection of the remaining amounts owing along with a right to its attorney’s fees and costs under the Homestead CC&Rs. The Motion for Summary Judgment was argued before Judge Slattery on February 202, 2026, by attorney Ian Ducey from Possinger Law Group for MJ Management, and attorney Matthew Davis on behalf of Defendant, Kelly, with a large number of Homestead residents watching via Zoom. In its decision, the Court noted that “no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact was provided by [the] Defendant.” And went on to rule that “…[o]wners of units within the Island Green Commons Condominium are subject to the Homestead [CC&Rs]…” The Court ruled that the Condominium and its units were “residential platted area[s]” subject to the CC&Rs…,” soundly rejected the arguments raised by Kelly’s counsel. During oral argument, attorney Matthew Davis also conceded that the other condominiums located within Homestead PRD were covered by the Homestead CC&Rs. “Their argument here was the same ‘stealth legal theory’ that the Plaintiffs had previously attempted to bring into the Hillius trial but which was dismissed by the trial judge.” stated attorney, Jeffrey Possinger, who represented MJ Management in the Hillius litigation. “It is satisfying to have this issued finally resolved and finally put to bed.” Most significant in the Court’s order was the determination that 18 Paradise had assigned the right to collect Joint Maintenance Fees to MJ Management from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2023, and was authorized to collect unpaid balances incurred by Homestead homeowners during that time period. The court’s order granted MJ Management’s right to collect attorney’s fees and costs and directed MJ Management to bring a declaration for attorney’s fees within 14 days of the court’s order. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management in the Hillis v. 18 Paradise litigation through the trial and has continued to represent MJ Management in its efforts to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees. = = = = = References: 2026-03-18_ORD_MSJ Granted
Tumble Creek Club Faces Potential Consumer Protection Class Action Over Membership Agreement
Posted on: 02 Jan 2026
On October 30, 2025, Penny Gutschmidt, a former resident of Tumble Creek, filed suit in Kittitas County Superior Court against Tumble Creek Club, LLC and others alleging among other things that that Tumble Creek’s Membership Agreement violates Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, Ch. 19.86 RCW. In addition to her own personal claims against Tumble Creek Club, Gutschmidt’s Complaint alleges that she is only one of many affected by the Membership Agreement and seeks to certify a class action on behalf of other members of the Tumble Creek Club. The court has not yet certified any class nor determined whether the case can move forward as a class action. Gutschmidt, who moved out of State and resigned her membership nearly two years ago, remains for all practical purposes a member of the club and continues to be charged membership dues and still has not had her membership deposit returned. The Complaint alleges among other things that Tumble Creek’s Membership Agreement as currently in place makes it practically impossible for a member to actually ever leave the club, to stop being charged monthly dues, or to have their membership deposit returned, a deposit that can be as much as $60,000. Under the terms of the Membership Agreement, Tumble Creek can hold onto a person’s membership deposit for 30 years or more, as further detailed in the Complaint. Taking a line from Hotel California, the Complaint begins with: ““‘Relax,’ said the night man, ‘We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.’” “That well known refrain sums up what Tumble Creek members face if they ever try to resign their membership with the club.” says Jeffrey Possinger, one of the attorneys representing Gutschmidt. Tumble Creek Golf, LLC, the company that runs Tumble Creek Club, is a country club at the center of a destination mountain community located 80 miles from Seattle on the Eastside of the Cascade mountains in Cle Elum, Washington. Tumble Creek is an exclusive community and golf club located within Suncadia. In addition to the Consumer Protection Act claims, the Complaint also seeks a judgment holding that some of the terms of Tumble Creek’s Membership Agreement are unenforceable. For More Information about the Tumble Creek Lawsuit: For more information, news, and updates about the Tumble Creek Lawsuit, visit the case website. For media questions, interviews, or any other needs, please contact [email protected].
Civil RICO and the Growing Use of Treble Damages in Business Disputes
Posted on: 10 Oct 2025
The ability to recover treble damages is one of the most significant incentives for plaintiffs to file a Civil RICO lawsuit. Under Civil RICO, plaintiffs can recover three times the amount of actual damages if they can prove that their business or property was harmed by a pattern of racketeering activity. This provision has made Civil RICO an attractive option in many business-related disputes, where the prospect of tripled damages can dramatically alter the stakes. This article explores the use of treble damages in Civil RICO cases and the impact they have on litigation strategy and outcomes. Treble Damages: An Overview Treble damages are a form of punitive damages that aim to deter illegal conduct by increasing the financial penalties for defendants found liable under the law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Civil RICO allows plaintiffs to recover three times their actual damages, plus attorney’s fees. The statute does not require any showing of malice or intent to justify treble damages; once a plaintiff proves their case, treble damages are automatic. In business disputes, the prospect of treble damages can be a powerful tool for plaintiffs, particularly in cases involving financial fraud or corporate misconduct. For instance, if a plaintiff suffers $1 million in damages due to a fraudulent scheme, a successful Civil RICO claim could result in a $3 million recovery, significantly increasing the potential liability for the defendant. Treble Damages as a Litigation Strategy The availability of treble damages under Civil RICO can shape litigation strategy in several ways: Plaintiff Leverage: The threat of treble damages gives plaintiffs significant leverage in settlement negotiations. Defendants facing the possibility of tripled damages may be more inclined to settle early, rather than risk a large judgment at trial. Defense Costs: Defending against a Civil RICO claim can be costly, as the stakes are often much higher than in typical civil cases. The risk of treble damages, combined with the possibility of paying the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, adds to the financial pressure on defendants. Expanding Claims: Some plaintiffs may attempt to use Civil RICO to transform what would otherwise be standard business disputes into high-stakes litigation. By alleging that fraudulent business practices constitute a pattern of racketeering, plaintiffs can potentially unlock treble damages, even in cases where traditional breach of contract or fraud claims would not provide such significant remedies. Criticism of Treble Damages in Civil RICO While treble damages are intended to serve as a deterrent against serious criminal conduct, critics argue that their use in civil litigation—especially in business disputes—can lead to abusive lawsuits. Defendants in Civil RICO cases often contend that plaintiffs are using the statute to coerce settlements by threatening the disproportionate financial burden of treble damages. In cases where the underlying conduct does not involve organized crime or egregious misconduct, the availability of treble damages may be seen as overly punitive. This has led to calls for reform, with some legal commentators suggesting that courts should have greater discretion in awarding treble damages in civil cases, rather than making them automatic upon a finding of liability. Judicial Reactions and Limitations Despite the potential for treble damages to increase litigation risks, courts have sometimes pushed back against plaintiffs who attempt to misuse Civil RICO. Judges are often wary of cases where plaintiffs seek to frame routine business disputes as RICO claims solely to access treble damages. For example, courts may dismiss Civil RICO claims if they find that the plaintiff has failed to establish the required pattern of racketeering or if the connection to criminal activity is too tenuous. Judges also have discretion to limit the scope of damages in certain cases, particularly where the plaintiff’s claims are based on speculative or exaggerated harms. Conclusion Treble damages under Civil RICO represent a potent legal remedy that can dramatically increase the financial stakes of business litigation. While these damages serve as a deterrent against serious wrongdoing, their use in civil cases, particularly those involving business disputes, has sparked debate. As plaintiffs continue to seek treble damages in a variety of legal contexts, courts must balance the need for deterrence with the risk of encouraging abusive litigation practices. In the meantime, both plaintiffs and defendants must carefully assess the potential for treble damages when navigating Civil RICO claims. Next Steps for Businesses If you have an issue related to civil litigation that may involve Civil RICO or any other issues involving complex legal matters, contact Possinger Law Group. = = = = = About Possinger Law Group, PLLC Founded in 2001, Possinger Law Group is a boutique law firm dedicated to elite levels of service to small and medium-sized businesses and the individuals that own them. When faced with serious problems, clients have reached out to Possinger Law Group to be a trusted advisor and advocate to be a guide through high conflict situations and complex legal challenges. In litigation matters, Possinger Law Group works with its clients to effectively resolve disputes, and when necessary, by being fiercely aggressive in litigation. Editor’s Note: This blog post, as well as any data and information provided are for informational purposes only. and is not intended to constitute legal advice and may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Readers of this article should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting based on information on this article without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
The Challenges of Proving a “Pattern of Racketeering” in Civil RICO Cases
Posted on: 26 Sep 2025
One of the most difficult aspects of pursuing a Civil RICO case is proving that the defendant engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity.” While Civil RICO provides plaintiffs with the opportunity to seek treble damages and attorney’s fees for harms caused by racketeering, establishing the necessary elements—particularly the pattern requirement—can be a significant hurdle. This article examines the concept of a “pattern” in Civil RICO litigation, the legal standards involved, and the challenges plaintiffs face in meeting this requirement. What Constitutes a Pattern of Racketeering? Under Civil RICO, a plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in at least two predicate acts of racketeering activity within a 10-year period. However, merely committing two predicate acts is not sufficient to establish a pattern. Courts require that the predicate acts be related and amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified this requirement in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (1989), ruling that a “pattern” of racketeering activity requires both relatedness and continuity. Relatedness means that the predicate acts must have a similar purpose, result, victim, or method of commission. Continuity can be established in two ways: Closed-ended continuity, where the racketeering acts occurred over a substantial period of time. Open-ended continuity, where the acts pose a threat of continuing criminal conduct into the future. Challenges in Proving a Pattern One of the primary challenges plaintiffs face is proving continuity, particularly in cases involving white-collar crime or corporate disputes. Courts have generally held that isolated or sporadic acts do not constitute a pattern of racketeering, even if multiple predicate acts are involved. This creates a higher burden for plaintiffs to show that the defendant’s conduct was part of a long-term or ongoing scheme. For example, if a defendant engaged in fraudulent activity for a short period of time, courts may rule that there is no closed-ended continuity. Conversely, in cases where the criminal activity has ceased, plaintiffs may struggle to prove open-ended continuity, as they must demonstrate that the criminal behavior will likely continue in the future. In business-related Civil RICO cases, defendants frequently argue that the plaintiff has failed to show a pattern of racketeering. They may contend that the alleged misconduct was an isolated incident or part of a legitimate business dispute, rather than an ongoing criminal enterprise. Key Cases and Legal Precedents Several key cases have shaped the interpretation of the “pattern” requirement in Civil RICO cases. In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that a pattern of racketeering activity requires continuity and relatedness. Courts have continued to refine this standard in subsequent cases, with varying interpretations of what qualifies as sufficient continuity. For instance, in Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that racketeering acts spanning a 16-month period could satisfy the closed-ended continuity requirement. However, other courts have ruled that similar timeframes were insufficient, depending on the nature of the alleged misconduct and the number of predicate acts involved. Practical Implications for Litigants The difficulty in proving a pattern of racketeering means that Civil RICO plaintiffs must be meticulous in building their cases. It is not enough to show that the defendant committed multiple crimes; plaintiffs must present a cohesive narrative that links the predicate acts into a larger scheme of ongoing criminal behavior. Defendants, on the other hand, often focus on breaking this link, arguing that the alleged conduct does not meet the stringent requirements for continuity or relatedness. The complexity of proving a pattern has led to numerous Civil RICO claims being dismissed at early stages of litigation. Conclusion The pattern requirement is one of the most challenging aspects of Civil RICO litigation. Plaintiffs must carefully assess whether the facts of their case meet the high standard for establishing a pattern of racketeering, and defendants often exploit the complexity of this requirement to seek dismissal of claims. As courts continue to refine the definition of a “pattern” in Civil RICO cases, litigants must stay abreast of evolving legal standards to build successful cases or defenses. Next Steps for Businesses If you have an issue related to civil litigation that may involve Civil RICO or any other issues involving complex legal matters, contact Possinger Law Group. = = = = = About Possinger Law Group, PLLC Founded in 2001, Possinger Law Group is a boutique law firm dedicated to elite levels of service to small and medium-sized businesses and the individuals that own them. When faced with serious problems, clients have reached out to Possinger Law Group to be a trusted advisor and advocate to be a guide through high conflict situations and complex legal challenges. In litigation matters, Possinger Law Group works with its clients to effectively resolve disputes, and when necessary, by being fiercely aggressive in litigation. Editor’s Note: This blog post, as well as any data and information provided are for informational purposes only. and is not intended to constitute legal advice and may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Readers of this article should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting based on information on this article without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
The Expanding Scope of Civil RICO Beyond Organized Crime
Posted on: 12 Sep 2025
Originally designed to combat traditional organized crime, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has evolved significantly since its enactment in 1970. While the statute was intended to target the Mafia and other criminal syndicates, the broad language of Civil RICO has made it applicable to a wide array of legal contexts, including business disputes, corporate fraud, and political corruption. This article will explore how Civil RICO has expanded beyond its initial scope and the implications of this shift for businesses, individuals, and the legal system. The Original Purpose of RICO The U.S. Congress passed the RICO Act as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Its primary goal was to dismantle criminal organizations by attacking their financial and organizational structures. RICO allowed federal prosecutors to charge individuals involved in racketeering activities as part of an “enterprise,” giving them the power to target entire criminal organizations, rather than just individuals committing isolated crimes. The statute provides for both criminal penalties and civil remedies. Under Civil RICO, private plaintiffs can sue individuals or entities who have engaged in a “pattern of racketeering” if they have suffered injury to their business or property. The possibility of recovering treble damages and attorney’s fees has made Civil RICO an attractive option for plaintiffs. Expansion into White-Collar and Corporate Crime Over time, Civil RICO has been increasingly applied to non-traditional criminal contexts, particularly in the realm of white-collar crime. Courts have allowed the use of Civil RICO to address financial fraud, securities violations, and corporate malfeasance. The broad list of predicate acts under RICO—which includes offenses like mail and wire fraud, embezzlement, and bribery—has provided the legal basis for applying RICO to business-related disputes. For instance, Civil RICO has been used to pursue corporate officers who engage in fraudulent schemes that harm investors or other businesses. In cases where fraudulent activity involves repeated actions, such as multiple instances of misleading investors or falsifying reports, plaintiffs can allege a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. One notable case illustrating this expansion is Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. (2008), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff does not need to have directly relied on fraudulent misrepresentations to pursue a Civil RICO claim based on mail fraud. This ruling has broadened the applicability of Civil RICO to cases where fraud affects a broader set of victims. Concerns About Overreach The growing use of Civil RICO in business disputes has sparked debates about whether the statute is being over-applied. Critics argue that RICO was never intended to be used in civil lawsuits involving routine business disputes or non-criminal activities. The potential for treble damages and attorney’s fees can create a powerful incentive for plaintiffs to frame their disputes as RICO claims, even when the underlying conduct does not involve true criminal racketeering. Defendants in Civil RICO cases often challenge the use of the statute, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a legitimate “enterprise” or a true “pattern” of racketeering activity. Courts are generally cautious in their application of RICO, particularly in civil cases, but the statute’s broad language leaves room for creative arguments. The Future of Civil RICO in Business Litigation Despite concerns about overreach, Civil RICO continues to be a popular legal tool for plaintiffs seeking to address complex, fraudulent schemes that may involve multiple actors and long-term misconduct. As businesses become more global and interconnected, Civil RICO’s ability to target organizations and enterprises remains relevant. However, its expansion into areas beyond traditional organized crime raises important questions about the boundaries of the statute. As courts continue to grapple with the application of RICO in non-criminal contexts, there may be future efforts to reform the statute or limit its use in civil cases. For now, Civil RICO remains a powerful tool in the legal arsenal of plaintiffs seeking redress for serious and ongoing harm caused by fraudulent enterprises. Next Steps for Businesses If you have an issue related to civil litigation that may involve Civil RICO or any other issues involving complex legal matters, contact Possinger Law Group. = = = = = About Possinger Law Group, PLLC Founded in 2001, Possinger Law Group is a boutique law firm dedicated to elite levels of service to small and medium-sized businesses and the individuals that own them. When faced with serious problems, clients have reached out to Possinger Law Group to be a trusted advisor and advocate to be a guide through high conflict situations and complex legal challenges. In litigation matters, Possinger Law Group works with its clients to effectively resolve disputes, and when necessary, by being fiercely aggressive in litigation. Editor’s Note: This blog post, as well as any data and information provided are for informational purposes only. and is not intended to constitute legal advice and may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Readers of this article should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting based on information on this article without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.