Can criminal street gangs be sued as unincorporated associations? Weber Co. v. Ogden Trece Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Weber Co. v. Ogden Trece addressed the novel question of whether criminal street gangs can be sued as unincorporated associations and the requirements for proper service of process on such entities.

Background and Facts

Weber County sought a permanent injunction against Ogden Trece, a criminal street gang, under Utah’s public nuisance statute. The county sued the gang as an unincorporated association, obtaining an injunction that prohibited gang members from associating with each other, imposed an 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, and restricted various activities within a twenty-five square-mile “Safety Zone” covering most of Ogden. The county personally served five alleged gang members but also sought service by publication on the gang itself, claiming it could not identify the gang’s management structure.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether criminal street gangs are amenable to suit as unincorporated associations, (2) whether the gang was properly served with process under Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and (3) whether individuals served with the injunction had standing to appeal.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that criminal street gangs are amenable to suit as unincorporated associations under Rule 17(d), which allows suit against entities that “transact business under a common name.” The court found that Trece satisfied both requirements: it conducted “business” through organized criminal activities generating revenue, and it operated under the common name “Ogden Trece.” However, the court ruled that service was improper because the county failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting to identify and serve the functional equivalent of an officer or managing agent before seeking service by publication under Rule 4(d)(4).

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that criminal organizations cannot escape civil liability merely because their activities are illegal. However, it emphasizes strict compliance with service requirements. Practitioners must document specific efforts to identify and serve appropriate agents before seeking alternative service methods. The court’s requirement of factual support, rather than conclusory allegations, for service by publication motions applies broadly to all unincorporated association cases.