KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge.
If Berkeley, California, was the last bastion of sixties counterculture, Barrington Hall, the city’s oldest and largest student housing co-operative, was surely the last rampart. While much of Berkeley became stuffy and conventional, the residents of Barrington Hall clung to their freewheeling ways. A bit too freewheeling, according to two of Barrington’s neighbors. They claim that the co-op’s denizens engaged in massive drug-law violations, turning the neighborhood into a drug-enterprise zone. This, they allege, interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property. We consider whether they state a claim under RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.1
Facts
Barrington Hall’s reputation was larger than life, even by California standards. Known across the country as a “drug den and anarchist household,” Barrington Hall prided itself on fostering alternative lifestyles. S.F. Chronicle, April 9, 1990, at [810]*810B3, col. 1. Its bizarre and irreverent rituals included nude dinners with themes like Satan’s Village Wine Dinner and the Cannibal Wine Dinner — the latter complete with body-part shaped food. “It was hard on us vegetarians,” sniffed one former resident. Id. at B4, col. 1.
These bacchanalian festivals often turned riotous. Objects, ranging from bottles to clothes dryers, were thrown out of the building into the yards and homes of neighbors. And in keeping with the counterculture motif, drug use and distribution were common: Plaintiffs allege that no fewer than 19 different enterprises and individuals — with colorful names like “Mushroom Dave,” “Icepick Al,” “Onngh Yanngh,” and “Marybeth (a.k.a. Scarymeth)” — used Barrington Hall as a base for dealing drugs such as LSD, heroin and methamphetamine. Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21-39, ER 7-11; see also S.F. Chronicle, April 9, 1990, at B4, cols. 1-3 (mentioning the presence of drugs at Barrington Hall).
Even as Berkeley gentrified and grew more conservative, Barrington Hall remained “a place where revolutionary expression was encouraged and often taken to the extreme.” Id. at B3, col. 1. Barrington Hall was, according to the graffiti on its walls, “An Oasis of Madness in a World Gone Sane.” Id. at col. 2-3 (photo).
The neighbors were not amused. They blame Barrington Hall for all sorts of social problems, including crime and litter. They also claim that the co-op’s residents conducted drug deals and posted look-outs in front of plaintiffs’ apartments, bothering them and making it look like they, too, were dealing drugs; and that Barrington’s residents, to avoid publicity and conceal their illegal activity, regularly dumped the bodies of persons suffering drug overdoses onto the sidewalks near neighboring apartments.
Two neighbors, plaintiffs Ruth Oscar and Charles Spinosa, filed this suit, charging that the drug-dealing constituted a racketeering enterprise which injured their property. They asked for triple damages under RICO plus recovery on an assortment of pendent state claims. Barrington Hall itself has since gone the way of love-ins and strawberry wine: Defendant University Students Co-operative Association, which owned and operated Barrington Hall, closed the co-op’s doors in December of 1989. S.F. Chronicle, July 10, 1990, at A3, col. 1. But this suit remains, proving once again that there is strife after death.
Discussion
Under civil RICO, persons injured in their “business or property” by a pattern of racketeering activity can recover treble damages and the cost of suit, including attorney’s fees. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1964(c). Everyone agrees that the repeated sales of narcotics alleged by plaintiffs amounts to a “pattern of racketeering activity.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D), (5). Defendants dispute, however, whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded an injury to business or property, and whether their injury was caused by the racketeering activity. The district court agreed with defendants that causation was not sufficiently pleaded and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs declined the opportunity to amend and brought this appeal instead.
I
The first question is whether plaintiffs have alleged an injury to “business or property” that will support a RICO claim. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); see Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 495, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3284, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985).
A. Defendants claim that plaintiffs had no property interest at all, much less one that was injured. They point out that plaintiffs didn’t own their apartments; they merely rented them. See Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 51-55, ER 14-15 (alleging that plaintiffs have leasehold interest in their apartments and parking spaces). According to defendants, this means that plaintiffs had no property interest that could have been harmed.
While federal law controls most questions under RICO, whether a particu[811]*811lar interest amounts to property is quintessentially a question of state law. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 430, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1154, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (“The hallmark of property ... is an individual entitlement grounded in state law....”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (property interests “are created and their dimensions are defined by” sources “such as state law.”); Milens v. Richmond Redev. Agency, 665 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir.1982) (“We look to local state law to determine what property rights exist_”). Under California law, lessees such as plaintiffs do have a property interest in their apartments. Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 125, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350, 356 (1971); see W.P. Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 87, at 621 (5th ed. 1984) (any interest sufficient to be dignified as a property right — including a tenancy for a term or a week-to-week tenancy — will support action for interference with its enjoyment). Not even the landlord may lawfully interfere with that property right. See Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855, 858, 395 P.2d 896, 898, 40 Cal.Rptr. 848, 850 (1964) (tenant right to possession and enjoyment). This makes sense. One who has paid to use and possess property — even if only for a limited time — is entitled to it for that period and state law protects that right from unjustified interference.2
Of course, the limited nature of plaintiffs’ property right will affect the amount of their recovery; they are entitled to compensation only for the loss of “market value of [their] term, but not for that of the reversion, in which [they had] no interest.” W.P. Keeton, supra § 87, at 621 (footnotes omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge.
If Berkeley, California, was the last bastion of sixties counterculture, Barrington Hall, the city’s oldest and largest student housing co-operative, was surely the last rampart. While much of Berkeley became stuffy and conventional, the residents of Barrington Hall clung to their freewheeling ways. A bit too freewheeling, according to two of Barrington’s neighbors. They claim that the co-op’s denizens engaged in massive drug-law violations, turning the neighborhood into a drug-enterprise zone. This, they allege, interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property. We consider whether they state a claim under RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.1
Facts
Barrington Hall’s reputation was larger than life, even by California standards. Known across the country as a “drug den and anarchist household,” Barrington Hall prided itself on fostering alternative lifestyles. S.F. Chronicle, April 9, 1990, at [810]*810B3, col. 1. Its bizarre and irreverent rituals included nude dinners with themes like Satan’s Village Wine Dinner and the Cannibal Wine Dinner — the latter complete with body-part shaped food. “It was hard on us vegetarians,” sniffed one former resident. Id. at B4, col. 1.
These bacchanalian festivals often turned riotous. Objects, ranging from bottles to clothes dryers, were thrown out of the building into the yards and homes of neighbors. And in keeping with the counterculture motif, drug use and distribution were common: Plaintiffs allege that no fewer than 19 different enterprises and individuals — with colorful names like “Mushroom Dave,” “Icepick Al,” “Onngh Yanngh,” and “Marybeth (a.k.a. Scarymeth)” — used Barrington Hall as a base for dealing drugs such as LSD, heroin and methamphetamine. Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21-39, ER 7-11; see also S.F. Chronicle, April 9, 1990, at B4, cols. 1-3 (mentioning the presence of drugs at Barrington Hall).
Even as Berkeley gentrified and grew more conservative, Barrington Hall remained “a place where revolutionary expression was encouraged and often taken to the extreme.” Id. at B3, col. 1. Barrington Hall was, according to the graffiti on its walls, “An Oasis of Madness in a World Gone Sane.” Id. at col. 2-3 (photo).
The neighbors were not amused. They blame Barrington Hall for all sorts of social problems, including crime and litter. They also claim that the co-op’s residents conducted drug deals and posted look-outs in front of plaintiffs’ apartments, bothering them and making it look like they, too, were dealing drugs; and that Barrington’s residents, to avoid publicity and conceal their illegal activity, regularly dumped the bodies of persons suffering drug overdoses onto the sidewalks near neighboring apartments.
Two neighbors, plaintiffs Ruth Oscar and Charles Spinosa, filed this suit, charging that the drug-dealing constituted a racketeering enterprise which injured their property. They asked for triple damages under RICO plus recovery on an assortment of pendent state claims. Barrington Hall itself has since gone the way of love-ins and strawberry wine: Defendant University Students Co-operative Association, which owned and operated Barrington Hall, closed the co-op’s doors in December of 1989. S.F. Chronicle, July 10, 1990, at A3, col. 1. But this suit remains, proving once again that there is strife after death.
Discussion
Under civil RICO, persons injured in their “business or property” by a pattern of racketeering activity can recover treble damages and the cost of suit, including attorney’s fees. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1964(c). Everyone agrees that the repeated sales of narcotics alleged by plaintiffs amounts to a “pattern of racketeering activity.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D), (5). Defendants dispute, however, whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded an injury to business or property, and whether their injury was caused by the racketeering activity. The district court agreed with defendants that causation was not sufficiently pleaded and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs declined the opportunity to amend and brought this appeal instead.
I
The first question is whether plaintiffs have alleged an injury to “business or property” that will support a RICO claim. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); see Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 495, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3284, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985).
A. Defendants claim that plaintiffs had no property interest at all, much less one that was injured. They point out that plaintiffs didn’t own their apartments; they merely rented them. See Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 51-55, ER 14-15 (alleging that plaintiffs have leasehold interest in their apartments and parking spaces). According to defendants, this means that plaintiffs had no property interest that could have been harmed.
While federal law controls most questions under RICO, whether a particu[811]*811lar interest amounts to property is quintessentially a question of state law. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 430, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1154, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (“The hallmark of property ... is an individual entitlement grounded in state law....”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (property interests “are created and their dimensions are defined by” sources “such as state law.”); Milens v. Richmond Redev. Agency, 665 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir.1982) (“We look to local state law to determine what property rights exist_”). Under California law, lessees such as plaintiffs do have a property interest in their apartments. Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 125, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350, 356 (1971); see W.P. Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 87, at 621 (5th ed. 1984) (any interest sufficient to be dignified as a property right — including a tenancy for a term or a week-to-week tenancy — will support action for interference with its enjoyment). Not even the landlord may lawfully interfere with that property right. See Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855, 858, 395 P.2d 896, 898, 40 Cal.Rptr. 848, 850 (1964) (tenant right to possession and enjoyment). This makes sense. One who has paid to use and possess property — even if only for a limited time — is entitled to it for that period and state law protects that right from unjustified interference.2
Of course, the limited nature of plaintiffs’ property right will affect the amount of their recovery; they are entitled to compensation only for the loss of “market value of [their] term, but not for that of the reversion, in which [they had] no interest.” W.P. Keeton, supra § 87, at 621 (footnotes omitted). But that’s a question of damages; it doesn’t affect whether there was a property interest in the first place.
B. Defendants have a back-up argument, however: Even if plaintiffs had a property interest, it wasn’t the type of interest RICO protects. RICO, they claim, protects only business property; it doesn’t extend to property owned for noncommercial purposes. See Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535 F.Supp. 1125, 1136 (D.Mass.1982). The language of the statute is to the contrary; it requires an injury to “business or property.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (emphasis added). Nothing in the statute requires that the property be commercial. Indeed, by referring to business or property in the disjunctive, Congress must have meant for the terms to cover different (though perhaps overlapping) concepts. Under defendants’ proffered reading, the term property would be subsumed entirely within the term business and the disjunctive “or” would be rendered meaningless. Normal principles of statutory construction preclude such an interpretation. See Nieto v. Ecker, 845 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1988); 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.06 (4th ed. 1984).3
C. So we turn to defendants’ backup to their back-up argument, which runs something like this: Plaintiffs didn’t lose the right to live in their apartments; they just lost a portion of the enjoyment they would normally derive from living there. This, defendants contend, is not the loss of a property right at all; it is merely a personal injury. And the established law of this circuit is that personal injury alone will not support a RICO claim. Berg v. First State Ins. Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.1990).
Berg does not control this case. The plaintiffs in Berg claimed that the defendants had caused their insurance policy to be cancelled. Id. Even though the policy [812]*812was property, we concluded that the plaintiffs suffered no financial harm: They paid no damages while uninsured and then replaced the policy at no extra cost. Id. at 465. What they sought was compensation for the stress of having been without insurance. Id. at 464. This, we held, was personal injury not damage to property, and therefore not cognizable under RICO. Id.
In contrast, plaintiffs here do not seek RICO damages for emotional distress, loss of sleep or any other personal injury caused by Barrington Hall’s activity. Their loss is economic: They paid good money for their leasehold interests, which included a right to the use and enjoyment of their property. W.P. Keeton, supra § 87, at 619 (undisturbed enjoyment inseparable from ownership of property); see also People v. Mason, 124 Cal.App.3d 348, 352-53, 177 Cal.Rptr. 284 (1981); R. Boyer, H. Hovenkamp & S. Kurtz, The Law of Property § 11.1, at 404-05 (4th Ed.1991); cf. Katenkamp v. Union Realty Co., 6 Cal.2d 765, 773-75, 59 P.2d 473 (1936) (“It is an axiom of law that one must use his property in a manner which does not unnecessarily damage the property of others, or diminish their equal right to the full enjoyment thereof.”). But, as a result of defendants’ alleged racketeering activity, they were denied one of the sticks in the bundle which made up their property — the right to its use and enjoyment. R. Boyer, supra § 11.1, at 404-05; see also United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 266-67, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 1068, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946) (overflight of aircraft “so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land” is a taking of property). And the loss of that right is clearly economic: There can be no doubt that a leasehold in an ordinary apartment is worth more than a leasehold in a unit besieged by narcotics traffickers.
Plaintiffs’ injury is conceptually no different than if a portion of their apartments had been flooded or damaged by fire. It would be possible, in either of these cases, to characterize the injury as merely psychic: The lessees are still entitled to live there; they just won’t enjoy it as much. Indeed, just about any injury to property (except theft of the property itself) could be characterized the same way: You still own the pile of scrap metal lying by the side of the freeway, but you won’t derive the same pleasure from it as when it was a brand-new Maserati.
This argument need not detain us. Even if the harm inflicted by the damage to property is psychological to some extent, the victim can still bring a RICO claim for the injury to the property itself; although the emotional injury is not compensable, the loss of or damage to property is. Thus, RICO entitles the owner of the Maserati to recover triple the value of the ruined ear; but it gives him nothing for the pain and suffering of having watched his dream machine reduced to a heap of rubble. Similarly, plaintiffs cannot recover under RICO for their suffering and emotional distress. But they can recover for the diminution of the fair market value of their property interest.4 They ask for no more, see Third Amended Complaint 1153, ER 15; and they’re entitled to no less.5
II
Having concluded that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded an injury to business or property, we now address the issue of causation. In doing so, we note that plaintiffs [813]*813have alleged the type of unlawful conduct that lies at the heart of RICO: The sale of illegal drugs and the crime and violence associated therewith. This is not a case where an enterprising lawyer has converted a business tort into a federal case; nor is it an ordinary landlord-tenant dispute run amok. Instead, plaintiffs allege precisely the type of conduct RICO was meant to deter — the continuous operation of a drug distribution enterprise. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D), (5).
A. Plaintiffs blame the occupants of Barrington Hall for a multitude of misdeeds, from assault to vandalism;6 their complaint reads more like an enumeration of the ten plagues than a pleading in federal court. Obviously, defendants aren’t liable for every social ill in the neighborhood; RICO liability is expansive, not unlimited. Under RICO, defendants are liable only for the harm inflicted “by reason of” the racketeering activity, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); RICO does not afford compensation for injuries caused by other conduct or other persons. Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496-97, 105 S.Ct. at 3285; see Brandenburg v. Seidel, 859 F.2d 1179, 1187 (4th Cir.1988) (plaintiff must adequately plead causal nexus between harm and racketeering activity). Thus, although Barrington Hall may have been noisy, thrown wild parties and otherwise been less than an ideal neighbor, RICO does not afford plaintiffs a remedy for those wrongs. It provides compensation only for injuries caused by the racketeering conduct.
B. The complaint alleges that residents of Barrington Hall conducted drug sales and posted look-outs in front of plaintiffs’ apartments and in their carports. This, they contend, interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property by making them fear for their safety and by making it appear that their apartments were a source of drugs. Third Amended Complaint 11 55, ER 15-16. In addition, they claim that Barrington Hall’s residents regularly disposed of overdose victims by dumping them in front of the building instead of summoning emergency assistance, all in an effort to conceal their nefarious activities. Id. 1115, ER 4.
Plaintiffs’ pleadings are no model, but this much is clear: the racketeering conduct complained of was the direct cause of the alleged injuries. According to the complaint, the racketeers themselves interfered with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment by distributing narcotics on and around plaintiffs’ property. Furthermore, plaintiffs alleged that overdose victims languished about the neighborhood because the racketeers were trying to conceal their illegal conduct. The injury was thus the direct consequence of the racketeering activity; there were no intervening causes or actors, and the harm was strictly foreseeable. The blighting of a neighborhood by the fallout from a racketeering enterprise seems to be the type of harm well within the contemplation of the statutory drafters. Causation was adequately pleaded.
C. The same cannot be said of plaintiffs’ other allegations. Without doubt, plaintiffs found it unpleasant to live amidst “filth, risk of disease, and noise.” Third Amended Complaint ¶ 56, ER 16. We also agree that they should not have had to tolerate “violence, [the] throwing of garbage on [their] property, [people] urinating on cars parked at [their property], vandalism,” id., and burglary, id. ¶ 54, ER 15. But RICO doesn’t provide a remedy for unneighborly conduct; it provides compensation only for damages caused by racketeering activity.
Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that these problems were caused by Barrington’s narcotics activity. First of all, the complaint never explains who committed the alleged wrongs. Of course, the culprits might have been customers of the racketeering enterprise, or even the racketeers themselves; but plaintiffs don’t say so. Based on the complaint, it’s just as likely that the perpetrators were totally unconnected to [814]*814Barrington Hall or its racketeering. Certainly, defendants are not liable under RICO for every misdeed ever committed in the neighborhood. In fact, defendants aren’t even liable under RICO for the conduct of their social visitors — unless their bad acts can somehow be connected to the racketeering.
Furthermore, the complaint fails to allege how Barrington Hall’s racketeering activity caused the culprits — whoever they were — to commit the listed offenses. It’s certainly possible that Barrington’s racketeering drew the perpetrators to the area and encouraged them to commit the offenses; but plaintiffs made no such allegation. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing those portions of the complaint that allege harms but fail to link them to the racketeering activity.7
Conclusion
We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.