Loeber v. Alghusain

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 7, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CARLTON BRYAN LOEBER, Case No. 21-cv-00505-JD

7 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 8

9 AMEER ALGHUSAIN, et al., Defendants. 10

11 12 Pro se plaintiff Carlton Loeber sued defendants Ameer Alghusain, AMIDAC Rail 13 Corporation, American Railways LLC, and General Railways LLC, under the RICO statute, 18 14 U.S.C. § 1962, and other federal criminal statutes. Dkt. No. 1. In a prior order, the Court 15 dismissed the civil RICO claims with leave to amend and dismissed the federal criminal law 16 claims with prejudice. Dkt. No. 21. Loeber filed an amended complaint that again fails to state a 17 plausible claim for relief. Dkt. No. 22. The Court consequently dismisses the amended complaint 18 with prejudice on its own motion under Rule 12(b)(6). See Choudhuri v. Specialized Loan 19 Servicing, No. 3:19-cv-04198- JD, 2019 WL 3323088, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2019). 20 “Pro se complaints are entitled to a liberal construction, but must still allege facts plausibly 21 demonstrating a claim for relief.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2 (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 22 (9th Cir. 2010)). A plausible civil RICO claim must satisfy the heightened pleading standards of 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and a variety of specific pleading allegations under the 24 statute with respect to the alleged criminal enterprise, predicate acts, injury, and causation. See 25 Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2004); Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. 26 Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1400-01 (9th Cir. 1986); United Bhd. of Carpenters & 27 Joiners of Am. v. Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO, 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) 1 The new statements in the amended complaint are irrelevant to plausibly alleging a corrupt 2 || enterprise or conduct within the purview of the RICO statute. It may be, as the amended 3 || complaint alleges, that Loeber loaned Alghusain approximately $16,000 “to finance a shipment of 4 |} rail construction materials,” and that Alghusain instead “used the money to buy hookahs for a new 5 enterprise or operation” and “for personal high-roller spending using a debit card access device.” 6 || Dkt. No. 22 446. But that is a far cry from the type of activity subject to a civil RICO claim. The 7 amended complaint’s references to Alghusain’s companies do not plausibly amount under RICO 8 || to “a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of 9 || conduct,” or establish “that the various associates function as a continuing unit” for racketeering 10 || purposes. Odom vy. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 552 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (quoting United 11 States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981)). The amended complaint also does not describe a 12 || common purpose with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) or provide evidence of an ongoing 13 organization or a continuing unit. See Dkt. No. 22 4] 72-77. 14 Consequently, the amended complaint is dismissed. Because Loeber had the opportunity 15 to address these shortcomings after the Court’s first order of dismissal, and did not fix them, the a 16 dismissal is with prejudice. Dkt. No. 21; Navajo Nation v. Dep ’t of Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1174 3 17 (9th Cir. 2017). Alghusain’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 25, is terminated as moot. The case will 18 || be closed. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 7, 2022 21 22 JAMEYDONATO 23 Unitedftates District Judge 24 25 26 27 28