Henriks v. Moritz, 120308 FED09, 07-55941

Docket Nº:07-55941
Party Name:YANA HENRIKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOUISA MORITZ; VICTOR NOVAL; TANIA NOVAL, Defendants - Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: BRIGHT, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:December 03, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

YANA HENRIKS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOUISA MORITZ; VICTOR NOVAL; TANIA NOVAL, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-55941

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 3, 2008

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted November 19, 2008 Pasadena, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. CV-06-05670-JFW John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Before: BRIGHT, [**] HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Yana Henriks appeals the dismissal of her Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) complaint with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s determination whether a party has standing, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 546 (9th Cir. 2004), and dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. United States v. Smithkline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Henriks’ claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), for lack of standing because she failed to allege an injury resulting from Defendants’ use or investment of racketeering income. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 437 (9th Cir. 1992).

Likewise, the district court did not err in dismissing Henriks’ claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), for lack of standing and failure to state a claim because she failed to allege an injury arising from Defendants’ acquisition or control of an interest in a RICO enterprise. See Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003).

The district court did not err in dismissing Henriks’ conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), because she failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP