Case ID: f-appx_433/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose VALADEZ; Babita Valadez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ruben AGUALLO; Paul Gregorio, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 10-15058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    Filed May 12, 2011.
    Blaine Fields, Trial, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Dov M. Grunschlag, Michelle Carter, Carter Carter Fries & Grunschlag, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Aguallo and Paul Gregorio appeal the district court’s judgment, after jury trial, in favor of plaintiffs Jose and Babita Valadez in their action alleging claims under RICO, and for extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The evidence established that appellees were engaged in interstate commerce through their rental car upholstery repair and interior cleaning business; their conduct need not have more than a de minim-is effect on interstate commerce. See United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.1996). The fraud verdict was not inconsistent with the verdicts on the other counts because the fraud claim had different elements. The jury’s award of nominal damages on the RICO claim supported the award of the attorney’s fees, which are mandatory when a violation of RICO is established. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.