It's Always Sunny in the Carolinas - Ep. 2

Adam Wood • May 16, 2025

TL;DR:

What happens when a dive bar’s “business strategy” involves kidnapping, intimidation, and theft? In this post, we explore how the Gang’s actions in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia could support a civil RICO claim and how the Gang might try to defend themselves.


Background: A Pattern of Paddy’s Predatory Practices:

In Season 4, Episode 8 – Paddy’s Pub: The Worst Bar in Philadelphia, the Gang responds to a scathing newspaper review by kidnapping the journalist who wrote it—and his neighbor, after mistakenly breaking into the wrong apartment. The two men are detained as the Gang tries to figure out how to avoid jail while still getting the retraction they want.

Then in Season 11, Episode 8 – Charlie Catches a Leprechaun, the Gang takes things a step further. Thinking they can rebrand themselves using the so-called “Paddy Wagon” to pick up and drive around customers while serving them overpriced beer on St. Patrick’s Day, the rebrand takes a detour when Frank, Dennis, and Dee kidnap, rob, and leave these customers stranded in the middle of nowhere without their wallets or phones.


These episodes reveal more than just poor business practices and impulse control. They show a recurring pattern: the Gang using intimidation, abduction, and theft as tools to protect or promote their business. In real life, that kind of conduct could expose them to serious liability. So let’s imagine one of those victims—an innocent Paddy Wagon customer kidnapped and relieved of his wallet—walks into a law office and asks: Can I sue these lunatics?


The answer might involve more than just tort law—it might involve RICO.


Civil RICO: Not Just for Mobsters:

As I discussed in a previous blog, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was passed in 1970 to target organized crime, but its reach now extends far beyond mafia families. RICO allows civil plaintiffs to sue when they’ve been harmed by a “pattern of racketeering activity” carried out through an “enterprise.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. If successful, a plaintiff can recover treble damages and attorney’s fees—making it a powerful tool for aggressive civil litigators (like this author).


To succeed, a civil RICO plaintiff must prove:

            1.         The defendant conducted or participated in the operation or management of an enterprise;

            2.         Through a pattern of racketeering activity—i.e., at least two predicate acts within ten years that are related and continuous;

            3.         That proximately caused;

            4.         A concrete injury to the plaintiff’s business or property.


See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); Bowen v. Adidas Am. Inc., 84 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023).


Under § 1961(1), “racketeering activity” includes a long list of criminal acts—among them, kidnapping. In Lynch v. Amoruso, 232 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), the court acknowledged kidnapping as a qualifying predicate act but dismissed the claim for lack of a second predicate or pattern. Likewise, Goldsmith v. Massad (In re Fiorillo), 494 B.R. 119 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013), allowed a civil RICO claim to proceed where multiple predicate acts—threats, extortion—were alleged within the timeframe.


Now suppose one of those Paddy Wagon victims—duped into boarding, abducted, robbed—brings a claim. That incident alone could constitute a predicate act. Add a second plaintiff, like one of the other wagon abductees or the kidnapped neighbor from Season 4, and suddenly a “pattern” starts to emerge. The Gang’s consistent use of intimidation (via Frank’s revolver or Dennis’ probable sociopathy) and abduction to protect or promote their bar might satisfy continuity, especially if these acts serve their shared goal: keeping Paddy’s afloat through any means necessary.


So while most people think of civil RICO as a tool to go after mob bosses or shady corporations, the law doesn’t say that. If a business commits multiple predicate acts in furtherance of its operation—even if the business is a dive bar full of maniacs—it may be civilly liable under RICO.


The Gang’s Defenses:

1. The "It Wasn't Me" Defense

Each Gang member might argue they were merely following another's lead. As we've seen countless times, when confronted with consequences, the Gang fractures into a circular firing squad of blame. Frank might claim the Paddy Wagon was Dennis' idea (he was just along for the ride, literally), while Dee insists she was manipulated by Dennis' psychological tactics (before donning her Crazy Paddy costume), while Charlie and Mac were left to tend to the bar (thinking the wagon would be for transportation, not abduction).

This defense attempts to leverage the Supreme Court's "operation or management" test from Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 59 (1990), which established that RICO liability requires that a defendant "have some part in directing the enterprise's affairs." The Gang members might individually argue they were merely passive participants rather than directors of the criminal schemes.


However, as explained in United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525, 1548 (11th Cir. 1995), "the commission of predicate acts" can itself establish "that a defendant had some part in directing the affairs of the enterprise." The Gang's consistent pattern of collective action (note in both episodes how unphased, if not immediately participatory, the members were when the initial abductors reveal what happened) would likely undermine individual attempts to distance themselves from the enterprise.


2. The "These Were Personal Ventures" Defense

The Gang might argue that kidnapping the journalist or robbing Paddy Wagon passengers were isolated incidents motivated by personal vendettas or self interest (like not having the cops called on them by the first two male passengers) rather than business interests. In Kerrigan v. Visalus, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 580, 608 (E.D. Mich. 2015), the court emphasized that RICO liability requires proof that each defendant participated in the operation of the enterprise's affairs, "not merely their own." The Gang might claim these were personal mistakes, not part of Paddy's business strategy.


However, this defense falters when examining the context: both incidents were explicitly tied to protecting or promoting the bar—the journalist's review threatened Paddy's reputation, and the Paddy Wagon was an attempt at rebranding their business model.


As explained in Martin Hilti Family Trust v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC, 137 F. Supp. 3d 430, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), RICO requires that defendants have "participated in the operation or management of the enterprise's affairs, not merely committed acts incidental to it." The court clarified that a RICO plaintiff must show a "pattern of racketeering activity" involving predicate acts that are "related and pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Id. The Gang's repeated use of kidnapping and theft as tools to benefit Paddy's Pub establishes exactly this kind of pattern.


Furthermore, Rosemann v. Sigillito, 956 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1095 (E.D. Mo. 2013), clarifies that a RICO enterprise must be "distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity itself." Here, Paddy's Pub isn't just where the Gang happens to meet—it's the economic engine that benefits from and motivates their racketeering activities. As the court noted in Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Servs., 17 F. Supp. 3d 207, 228 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), the "operation or management" test requires "some part in directing the enterprise's affairs," a standard the Gang easily meets when their activities so clearly advance the bar's interests.


For our hypothetical plaintiffs, the Gang's consistent use of Paddy's Pub as both physical headquarters and financial beneficiary of their schemes creates a compelling narrative of an enterprise operated through a pattern of racketeering activity—one that not even Charlie's bird law expertise could defend against.


Contact Us:

If you have questions about the topics addressed in this article or another civil litigation matter, contact Wood Law Offices, PLLC through our website or by phone.


Disclaimer:

This blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author. This content is considered attorney advertising and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.


Sources, For the Curious (or Skeptical):

  • Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985).
  • Bowen v. Adidas Am. Inc., 84 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023).
  • Lynch v. Amoruso, 232 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
  • Goldsmith v. Massad (In re Fiorillo), 494 B.R. 119 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013).
  • Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990).
  • United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1995).
  • Kerrigan v. Visalus, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 580 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
  • Martin Hilti Family Trust v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC, 137 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
  • Rosemann v. Sigillito, 956 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Mo. 2013).
  • Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Servs., 17 F. Supp. 3d 207 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968.
  • "Paddy's Pub: The Worst Bar in Philadelphia." It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, created by Rob McElhenney, season 4, episode 8, FX Productions, 18 Sep. 2008.
  • "Charlie Catches a Leprechaun." It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, created by Rob McElhenney, season 11, episode 8, FX Productions, 17 Feb. 2016.


Intellectual Property Notice:

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and all associated characters, episode titles, and trademarks are the property of FX Networks, LLC. Any references or commentary on the series, its episodes, or its characters are made solely for educational and informational purposes and are without prejudice to the rights of the original owners and creators. Neither the author of this article nor Wood Law Offices, PLLC is affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to FX Networks, LLC or the creators of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.


This blog post constitutes free public commentary on fictional legal scenarios for the purpose of legal analysis and public discourse. Such use is protected under the fair use doctrine in 17 U.S.C. § 107, which expressly covers “criticism,” “comment,” and “education.” See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994); Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007); Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. 1986).


© Wood Law Offices, PLLC. 2025. All rights reserved.

Share this post