Ahead Of Civil Trial Start, Alex Rodriguez No Longer Faces Racketeering, Civil Theft Claims

He is still scheduled to appear in courtroom 10-1 of the Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse starting November 15 for a scheduled four to five-week trial, but defendant Alex Rodriguez had a favorable ruling from Judge Michael Hanzman Thursday in the civil dispute that pits the former New York Yankee against his ex-brother-in-law, Constantine Scurtis.

Hanzman granted a motion for summary judgment on two bombshell claims— racketeering and civil theft — in a signed order, according to a report in the Daily Business Review. The order was not yet available through the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court online records as of Thursday night. Granting summary judgment means those claims will not be tried before a jury.

The nearly seven-year legal battle, which centers around a real estate venture Scurtis and Rodriguez started in 2003, began when Scurtis filed a civil complaint in Florida state court in December 2014. Earlier this year, Scurtis hired a new legal team and filed a fourth amended complaint, which included the new civil RICO and civil theft claims, both of which carry treble damages.

Scurtis alleges Rodriguez pushed him out of the company in 2008, the same year Rodriguez divorced Scurtis’ older sister, Cynthia. Some of Scurtis’ other claims in the complaint include breach of partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty.

But during the proceedings this year, including on numerous Zoom video hearings, Hanzman has been critical of the racketeering claim, at one point calling it “one of the most abused statutes in civil litigation.” During one hearing, Hanzman urged Scurtis’ attorneys to “have a come to Jesus with your client” with regard to continuing to pursue the RICO claim.

Scurtis alleged that Rodriguez and another defendant, Stuart Zook, engaged in a pattern of racketeering and embezzlement, and the RICO claim was partially tied to alleged mortgage and insurance fraud committed during 2008, after Hurricane Ike pounded the west coast of Florida and severely damaged property that was part of Scurtis’ and Rodriguez’s real estate company.

In the latest signed order, according to the Daily Business Review, Hanzman said “(Scurtis’) newly minted RICO/civil theft claims were added for no purpose other than to embarrass Rodriguez, generate sensationalized press, and increase settlement leverage.”

“The Court’s conclusion in the order speaks for itself,” said Benjamin Brodsky, one of Rodriguez’s attorneys.

“We strongly disagree with the Court’s ruling. Constantine Scurtis’s claims should be heard by a jury, and we intend to pursue his claims until he receives fair compensation for his injuries,” said one of Scurtis’ attorneys, Katherine Eskovitz, a former federal prosecutor.

Hanzman has pushed both sides to try and reach a settlement, but that appears unlikely in the final days leading up to trial. More recently, Hanzman was focused on trying the discrete issue of whether Scurtis’ interests in the real estate partnership were converted or civilly stolen, before doing an about-face and ruling that the “entire case” would go to trial.

“All summary judgment issues, to the extent they have not already been decided, are carried with the case,” said Hanzman on October 22.

Rodriguez, 46, could be called to the stand in trial — according to an earlier court filing, he and his ex-wife are on the plaintiff’s initial witness list — and portions of Rodriguez’s three-day video deposition could be played before a jury if Hanzman allows that evidence in trial.