Felipe Gomez v. Larry Weisenthal

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-55833
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE N. GOMEZ, personally, and as No. 22-55833 Former non-attorney Custodian for Arthur Gomez, D.C. No. 8:21-cv-02039-JLS-JDE

Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v.

LARRY WEISENTHAL; CONNIE WEISENTHAL, as former Trustee and personally; RICK FENELLI, Atty No. 68879; FENELLI AND ASSOCIATES FENELLI LAW,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Felipe N. Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gomez’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. dismissing his action alleging claims under the Racketeering Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gomez’s claims against defendants

Larry Weisenthal and Connie Weisenthal because Gomez failed to allege facts

sufficient to establish constitutional standing for his state law claim or statutory

standing for his RICO claim. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61

(1992) (setting forth requirements for constitutional standing, including an “injury

in fact”); Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir.

2008) (explaining that to establish standing under § 1964(c), a civil RICO plaintiff

must establish that the “alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or

property”).

In his opening brief, Gomez fails to address the district court’s dismissal of

Gomez’s claims against defendants Rick Fenelli and Fenelli & Associates/Fenelli

Law and has therefore waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of

these claims. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th

Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in

appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are

2 22-55833 waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gomez’s

complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.

See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.

2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be

denied where amendment would be futile).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-55833