John D. v. Regents of the University of California

Ninth Circuit

John D. v. Regents of the University of California

70 F. App'x 466

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 23, 2003

DocketNo. 02-55602; D.C. No. CV-00-00471-DOC

StatusPublished

This text of 70 F. App'x 466 (John D. v. Regents of the University of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John D. v. Regents of the University of California, 70 F. App'x 466 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

1. The district court improperly granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state [467]*467a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). To state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (2000), a complaint must allege injury to a plaintiffs “business or property.” Appellants pleaded “loss and injury to their personal property,” “loss of money,” and “loss of other cognizable ‘property’ interests.” Third Am. Compl. for Damages 11201. Appellants have adequately alleged their injury on the face of the complaint. See Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 256, 114 S.Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994).

2. As alternate grounds for affirmance, appellees urge, as they did below, that appellants’ claim is time-barred. However, we cannot affirm on such grounds at this stage of the pleadings. See Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.1995) (“[A] complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.”).

REVERSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

1. The district court improperly granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state [467]*467a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). To state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (2000), a complaint must allege injury to a plaintiffs “business or property.” Appellants pleaded “loss and injury to their personal property,” “loss of money,” and “loss of other cognizable ‘property’ interests.” Third Am. Compl. for Damages 11201. Appellants have adequately alleged their injury on the face of the complaint. See Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 256, 114 S.Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994).

2. As alternate grounds for affirmance, appellees urge, as they did below, that appellants’ claim is time-barred. However, we cannot affirm on such grounds at this stage of the pleadings. See Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.1995) (“[A] complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.”).

REVERSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 F. App'x 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-d-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack