## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 31 79

__ __ __ __ __ _

Gran t A. Gom ez an d Lan ie L. Gom ez, *

on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll *

ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed

, *

* App el la nt s, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. W el ls Farg o B an k, N.A. an d *
Valu at io n In fo rm at io n Tec hn ol og ie s, * LLC, do in g b us in es s as Rel s Val ua ti on , *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 20 , 20 11
Fi le d: Apri l 1 2, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RILEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, SHEPHERD, Ci r c u i t Ju dg e, an d W EBBER, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ _
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Gran t A. Gom ez an d Lan ie L. G om ez (th e Gom ezes ) so ug ht to es ta bl is h a

na ti on wid e cl as s of th ou sa nd s of bo rro wers who al le ge dl y pa id in fla te d ap pr ai sa l fees

in co nn ect io n wit h real es ta te tra ns act io ns fin an ced by W el ls Farg o Ban k, N.A. (Wells

Th e Hon or ab le E. Ri ch ard W eb be r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.Farg o)

. The Gom ezes ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th ei r cl ai m s co nt en di ng 2

th e ap pr ai sa l pr act ic es of W el ls Farg o an d Valu at io n In fo rm at io n Tech no lo gy, LLC

d/ b/ a Rel s Valu at io n (Rel s, an d co ll ect iv el y , ap pe ll ees ) un jus tl y en ric he d R e l s an d

vi ol at ed th e Rac ke te er In flu en ced an d Co rru pt Org an iz at io ns Act (RIC O), 18 U.S.C.
§ 19 61 et se q.; th e Rea l Est at e Set tl em en t Pro ced ur es Act of 19 74 (RESPA)

, 12 U.S.C.
§ 26 01 et se q.; Cal ifo rn ia ’s Unf ai r Co m pe ti ti on Law (UCL), Cal

. Bu s. & Pro f. Co de
§ 17 20 0 et se q.; an d Ariz on a’s an ti -rac ke te eri ng st at ut e, Ariz

. Rev

. St at

. § 13 -2 31 4.0 4
(AZRAC). We affir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac ts 3

Th e G o mez es are a m arri ed co up le fro m Sco tt sd al e, Ariz on a who m or tg ag e d

an d refi na nc ed th ei r ho m e th ro ug h W el ls Farg o

. We l l s F arg o is a na ti on al ba nk in g

as so ci at io n th at pr ov id es m or tg ag es th ro ug h W el ls Farg o Hom e Mo rtg ag e. Rel s is an

Io wa li m it ed li ab il it y co m p an y he ad qu art ered in Mi nn es ot a. Rel s, whi ch arra ng es
real -p ro pe rty ap pr ai sa ls

, is a joi nt ve nt ur e of W el ls Farg o Fo ot hi ll (WFF), an affi li at e

of W el ls Farg o, an d F i r s t A m eri can Rea l Est at e So lu ti on s (Fi rs t Am eri can ), a

su bs id ia ry of Fi rs t Am eri can Co rp or at io n

. WF F own s 49 .9% of Rel s, an d Fi rs t

Am eri can own s 5 0.1 %.

In Mar ch 20 06 , th e Gom ezes pu rch as ed a ho m e in Sco tt sd al e, Ariz on a wit h a
lo an fro m W el ls Farg o an d ex ecu te d a m or tg ag e on th e pr op ert y in W el l s Farg o’s

fav or

. On Mar ch 2, 20 06

, th e Gom ezes si gn e d a HUD-1 se tt le m en t st at em en t 4

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2

of Mi nn es ot a.

“ W e reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [th e Gom ezes ]. ” Mal on e v. 3

Am eren UE, 646 F.3d 51 2, 5 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

The Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t of Hou si ng an d Urb an Dev el op m en t (HUD) 4

pr es cri be s fo rm HUD-1 to se t fo rth th e se tt le m en t ch arg es fo r a res id en ti al real es ta te

-2

-di sc lo si ng th e Gom ezes wou ld in cu r an ap pr ai sa l fee of $3 75

, to be pa id to Rel s a s

W el ls Farg o d ire ct ed

.

On Mar ch 1, 20 07

, th e G o mez e s r efi na nc ed th e Sco tt sd al e pr op ert y th ro ug h

W el ls Farg o an d ex ecu te d an ot he r m or tg ag e. In co nn ect io n wit h th at refi na n c i n g,

W el ls Farg o se nt th e Gom ezes a HUD-1 Goo d Fai th Est im at e di sc lo si ng W el ls Farg o

ha d a bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p wit h Rel s an d es ti m at in g th e ap pr ai sa l fee wou ld be

be twee n $5 0 an d $6 50

. On Mar ch 5, 20 07

, th e Gom ezes si gn ed th e HUD-1 se tt le m en t

st at em en t fo r th e r efi na nc in g, whi ch in di cat ed th e Gom ezes wou ld pa y Rel s an

ap pr ai sa l fe e o f $4 95

.

T he Gom ezes m ai nt ai n th e se tt le m en t st at em en ts th ey rece iv ed were m is le ad ing

be cau se th ey di d no t di sc lo se Rel s wou ld no t pe rfo rm th e act ua l ap pr ai sa l an d th at th e

act ua l co st of th e ap pr ai sa l wou ld be m uc h le ss th an th e am ou nt ch ar g e d

. The

Gom ezes al le ge Rel s pa id th e act ua l ap pr ai se rs no m or e th an $2 00 an d “ sk im m ed th e
di ffer en ce” a t cl os in g.

In wha t th ey de sc rib e as an “ In fla te d App rai sa l Fee Sch e me” b e t ween W el ls
Farg o an d Rel s, th e Gom ezes al le ge “ W el ls Farg o req ui red [th e Gom ezes ] an d [c]las s

m em be rs to us e Rel s Val ua ti on , bo th to reap th e si gn ifi can t pr of it s de riv ed fro m th e

ap pr ai sa ls on W el ls Farg o lo an s an d to co nt ro l th e ap pr ai sa l pr oc es s an d gu aran te e th at

W el ls Farg o co ul d cl os e wha te ve r lo an s it wan te d to

, irr es pe ct iv e of th e act ua l m ark et

va lu es of th e pr op ert ie s on whi ch it was le nd in g.” The Gom ezes de sc rib e th e sc he m e

as fol lo ws.

W el ls Farg o se nd s a go od -fai th es ti m at e to a pr os pe ct iv e bo rro wer, di sc lo si ng

W el ls Farg o wil l req ui re an ap pr ai sa l fro m an ap pr ov ed ap pr ai se r. W el ls Farg o th en

sp eci fie s Rel s, whi ch “ co nt act s in de pe nd en t ap pr ai se rs to pe rfo rm th e ap pr ai sa l

. . . at

tra ns act io n. Se e 2 4 C .F.R. § 3 50 0.2 (b ).

-3

-a ve ry lo w rat e.” Bec au se of W el ls Farg o’s do m in an t m ark et po si ti on , Rel s de m an ds

ap pr ai se rs ch arg e “ a red uc ed fee th a t is far be lo w t he m ark et rat es th e ap pr ai se r ha d

be en ch arg in g.” So m e in de pe nd en t ap pr ai se rs ha ve in fo rm ed W el ls Farg o a nd Rel s

t h e r a t e s are “ so lo w th at a pr op er ap pr ai sa l can no t be pe rfo rm ed ,” bu t W el ls Fa r g o

“ in si st s on a va st ly red uc ed rat e, sa cri fic in g qu al it y fo r pr ic e.” If th e ap pr ai se r refu se s

to lo wer i ts rat es , it is rem ov ed fro m W el ls Farg o’s l is t o f ap pr ov ed ap pr ai se rs

.

Des pi te req ui rin g ap pr ai se rs to ch arg e Rel s “ far un de r th e pr ev ai li ng m ark e t

rat e,” “ Rel s Valu at io n do es no t pa ss on th e red uc ed ap pr ai sa l fees to th e ho m e bu y er.”

Rat he r, “ W el ls Farg o m ai nt ai n[ s] m ark et rat es to it s bo rro wers .” “ W hi le so m e W el ls
Farg o cu st om ers are to ld of th e affi li at ed rel at io ns hi p be twee n W el ls Farg o an d Rel s

V a l ua ti on , no ne kn ow

. . . th e ap pr ai sa l fee se t fo rth on th e HUD-1 Set t l e men t

St at em en t” far exce ed s th e act ua l cos t of the fie ld ap pr ai sa l. Neit he r Rel s n or W el ls
Farg o di sc lo se s Rel s’s “m a r k u p to th e bo rro wer, an d Rel s Valu at io n pe rfo rm s no
ad di ti on al ap pr ai sa l se rv ic es be y on d m erel y fo rward in g th e ap pr ai sa l to W el ls Farg o

or th e es cro w pro vi de r fo r th e tr an sa ct io n.”

A c c o r d in g to th e Gom ezes , in ex ch an ge fo r in crea se d refe rral s, Rel s “ gi ve s

W el ls Farg o vi si bi li ty in to th e ap pr ai sa l p r o c e s s an d su bs ta nt ia l co nt ro l ov er th e

ou tc om e of th e ap pr ai sa l.” The Gom ezes arg ue W el ls Farg o al so be ne fit s “ th ro ug h th e

pr of it s ro ll ed up to th e pa ren t co m pa ny of W el ls Farg o an d Rel s.” The Gom ezes cl ai m

th is “ sc he m e” ha rm ed th em an d th e pu ta ti ve cl as s m em be rs by cau si ng th em to pa y to o

m uc h fo r ap pr ai sa ls an d of

te n de pr iv in g th em of th e be ne fit of an accu rat e ap pr ai sa l.

B. Prio r Pro ceed in gs

On Ja nu ary 30

, 20 09

, th e Gom ezes fil ed a cl as s- act io n co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t W el ls
Farg o an d Rel s in th e Uni te d S t a t es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ariz on a. On

Mar ch 17

, 20 09

, th e Gom ezes am en de d th e co m pl ai nt

. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 15 (a)( 1)

. On Apr il 20

, 20 09

, wit h le av e of co ur t, th e Gom ezes fil ed a si x- co un t se co nd am en de d

cl as s- act io n c om

pl ai nt (co m

pl ai nt ).

-4

-In Co un t I of th e co m pl ai nt

, th e Gom ezes al le ge d W el ls Farg o an d Rel s en ga ge d

in a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng an d co ns pi racy in vi ol at io n of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 19 62 (c)

an d (d )

. In Co un t II, th ey as se rte d Rel s vi ol at ed Sect io n 8( b) of RESPA, 12 U.S

. C

. § 26 07 (b ), by m ark in g up th ird -p art y ap pr ai sa l fees

. In Co un t III, th ey al le ge d W el ls
Farg o an d Rel s vi ol at ed Sect io n 8( a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 26 07 (a) an d (c), be cau se
Rel s al le ge d l y g a v e W el ls Farg o “ co nt ro l ov er th e ap pr ai sa l pr oc es s an d res ul ts ” in

ex ch an ge fo r ap pr ai sa l refe rral s. In Co un t IV, th ey cl ai m ed Rel s was un jus tl y en ric he d
by th e al le ge d m ark up of ap pr ai sa l fee s

. I n Co un t V, th ey al le ge d W el ls Farg o’s

ap pr ai sa l p ract ic es co ns ti tu te d u nf ai r co m pe ti ti on un de r th e UCL. And in Co un t VI

th ey as se rte d ap pe ll ees e n g a g e d in a pa tt ern of un la wfu l rack et eeri ng act iv it y in

vi ol at io n o f AZRAC.

On May 4, 20 09

, W el ls Farg o an d Rel s in di vi du al ly m ov ed to di sm is s al l cl ai m s

ag ai ns t th em pu rs ua nt to Fed . R . C iv . P . 1 2( b) (1 ), 12 (b )(6 ), an d 9( b)

. The ne xt da y , th ey joi nt ly m ov ed to tra ns fer th e cas e to th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a. On Ju ly 2, 20 09

, th e Ariz on a di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e ap pe ll ees ’ joi nt m ot io n an d tra ns ferr ed th e cas e.

In Sep te m

be r 20 09 , Rel s an d W el ls Farg o fil ed ren ewed m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r la ck

of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

.

On Aug us t 30 , 2 01 0, th e di st ric t c o u r t g r a nt ed , wi th pr ejud ic e, W el ls Farg o’s

an d Rels ’s m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m wit h resp ect to Co un ts I, II,

II I

, V

, a n d VI. Not in g th e Gom ezes ’ al le ga ti on s ad m it te d W el ls Farg o ch arg ed 5

App el le es ch al le ng ed th e Gom ezes ’ st an di ng un de r Arti cl e III of th e Uni te d 5

St at es Co ns ti tu ti on to rai se a RESPA Sect io n 8( a) cl ai m , bu t th e di st ric t co ur t de ci de d
th e Gom ezes ha d st an di ng “ reg ard le ss of whe th er th ere was an ov erch arg e or whe th er th e c o s t of th e se rv ic es was ot he rwis e in fla te d.” On Ju ne 20

, 20 11

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es gr an te d cert io rari in Edwar ds v. Fi rs t Am

. Co rp ., 61 0 F.3 d
51 4 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. gr an te d in pa rt,

__ _ U.S.

__ _, 13 1 S. Ct

. 3 02 2 (2 01 1)

, to de te rm in e whe th er a pr iv at e pu rch as e r of real es ta te se tt le m en t se rv ic es ha s Arti cl e

-5

-bo rro wers m ark et rat es fo r ap pr ai sa ls

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th e Gom ezes la ck ed

st at ut or y st an di ng un de r RICO, AZ RAC, an d th e UCL be cau se th e Gom ezes di d no t

su ffer a “ co nc ret e fin an ci al lo ss .” The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e Gom ezes ’ RESPA

Sect io n 8( a) cl ai m be cau se th e Gom ezes fai le d to sh ow Rel s ga ve W el ls Farg o a “ th in g

of va lu e,” an d t he ir R ESPA Sect io n 8(b ) cl ai m be cau se th ey di d n ot all eg e u nl awfu l

fee sp li tt in g. Decl in in g to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic t i o n o v er th e Gom ezes ’

un jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Co un t IV wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. The

Gom ezes ap pe al

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th e Gom ezes ’ co m pl ai nt de no vo ,

acce pt in g as tru e th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d in th e co m pl ai nt an d gr an ti ng th e

G o mez e s th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at can be dr awn fro m t h o s e

al le ga ti on s. See Lu s tg raaf v. Beh ren s, 61 9 F.3 d 86 7, 87 2- 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ To

su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, a co m pl ai n t mu s t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r,

a c c e p t e d a s t ru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .’ ” Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2,

__

_, 12 9 S. Ct

. 19 3 7

, 1 9 49 (2 00 9) (q uo ti ng Bel l Atl

. Co rp

. v.

Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 5 7 0 ( 2 0 0 7 )). “ A cl ai m ha s faci al pl au si bi li ty whe n th e pl ai nt iff pl ead s fact ua l co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc e

th at th e d efen da nt is li ab le for th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.” Id.

B. RICO a nd AZ RAC

“ Sect io n 19 62 of th e RICO Act m ak es it ‘unl awfu l fo r an y pe rs on em pl oyed by

or as so ci at ed wit h an y en te rp ris e en ga ge d in

, or th e act iv it i e s of whi ch affe ct

,

III st an di ng in th e ab se nc e of a “ cl ai m th at th e al le ge d vi ol at io n affe ct ed t he pr ic e,
qu al it y , or ot he r ch arac te ris ti cs of th e se tt le m en t se rv ic es p r o v i d e d .” Bec au se
ap pe ll ees do no t ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s r u l in g an d th ere is no di sp ut e th e Gom ezes all eg e an ov erch arg e, we ne ed no t d el ay di sp os it io n o f th is cas e.

-6

-in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce , to co nd uc t or pa rti ci pa te

, di rect ly or in di rect ly, in th e

co nd uc t of su ch en te rp ris e’s affa irs th ro ug h a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y .’ ” Nit ro
Dis tri b., In c. v. Alt ic or , In c., 56 5 F

. 3 d 41 7, 42 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C.
§ 1 96 2( c)). “ Any pers on in jure d i n h is bu si ne ss or pr op ert y by reas on of a vi ol at io n

of [§ 19 62 ] m ay su e th eref or ” in fed eral co ur t an d reco ve r tre bl e da m ag es

. 18 U.S.C.
§ 19 64 (c). Si m il arl y , AZRAC au th or iz es su it by “ [a] pe rs on who su st ai ns reas on ab ly

fo res eeab le in

jury to hi s pe rs on , bu si ne ss or pr op ert y by a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng

act iv it y .” Ariz. Re v. St at . § 1 3- 23 14 .04 (A), (T).

6

“ To h a v e st an di ng to m ak e a RICO cl ai m , a pa rty m us t ha ve 1) su st ai ne d an

in jury to bu si ne ss or pr op ert y 2) th at was cau se d by a RICO vi ol at io n.” Asa -Bra nd t,

In c. v. ADM In ve st or Serv s., In c., 34 4 F .3d 73 8, 7 52 (8t h Cir. 20 03 ). “ [A] sh owi ng

of in jur y r e q u i r e s pr oo f of co nc ret e fin an ci al lo ss , a nd no t m ere in jury to a va lu ab le

in ta ng ib le pr op ert y in te res t.” Reg io ns Ban k v. J.R

. Oil Co

., LLC, 38 7 F.3 d 72 1, 72 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng St eel e v. Hos p. Co rp

. of Am

., 36 F.3 d 69

, 70 (9 th Ci r. 19 94 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

App lying th es e st a nd ard s to th e Gom ezes ’ co m pl ai nt

, th e di st ric t co ur t

d e t erm in ed th e Gom ezes la ck ed st an di ng un de r RICO an d AZRAC be cau se “t h e

al le ge d RICO vi ol at io ns di d no t cau se th e Gom ezes to su ffer an y ‘con cret e fin an ci al

lo ss .’ ” Not in g “ [t]he co m pl ai nt co nc ed es th at ‘W el ls Farg o m ai nt ai ne d m ar k et ra tes

The Gom ezes do no t di sp ut e th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si o n th e Gom ezes 6

co nc ed ed “ th at th ere is no su bs ta nt iv e di ffer en ce be twee n th e Ariz on a [AZRAC] an d
fed eral RIC O sta

ndi ng req ui rem en ts .” Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we an al y ze th os e cl ai m s
to ge th er. See Ro si er v. Fi rs t Fi n. Cap it al Co rp ., 88 9 P.2 d 11

, 15 (Ari z. Ct

. App

. 19 94 ) (in te rp ret in g AZRAC co ns is te nt wit h RICO be cau se th e Ariz on a “ le gi sl at ur e
pa tt ern ed [AZRAC] after th e fed eral RICO s ta tu te ”).

-7

-to it s bo rro wers ,’ ” th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th e Gom ezes “ wou ld ha ve be en in th e

sa m e [fi na nc ia l] po si ti on in th e ab se nc e o f th e al le ge d R ICO v io la ti on s.”

The Gom ezes as se rt th ey “ ad eq ua te ly al le ge [d ] se ve ral gr ou nd s th at su pp or t

th ei r st an di ng un de r R I C O ev en if [Wells Farg o] ‘m ai nt ai ne d m ark et rat es to it s
bo rro wers for ap pr ai sa ls .’ ” W e d is ag ree.

The Gom ezes fir st arg ue ap pe ll ees vi ol at ed RICO “ by de cep ti ve ly co nv in ci ng [th e Gom ezes ] th at th e $4 95 pa id to Rel s was th e act ua l co st of th e ap pr ai sa l whe n th e

act ua l co st was $2 00 or le s s ” a nd no t pa ss in g on th e red uc ed rat e or di sc lo si ng th e

m ark up to th e bo rro wer. Acco rd in g to th e Gom ezes , th ei r “ da m ag es are m eas ur ed by

th e am ou nt by whi ch [th e ap pe ll ees ] m ark ed up th ei r ap pr ai sa l fee, reg ard le ss of ‘fair

m ark et va lu e.’”

In su pp or t of th is th eo ry of RICO li ab il it y , th e Gom ezes rel y on Po to m ac Elec

. Po wer Co

. v. Elec

. Mo to r an d Su pp ly, I n c

. , 26 2 F.3 d 26 0, 26 5 (4 th Ci r. 20 01 ), in

whi ch th e Fo ur th Cir cu it st at ed

,

If a pa rty s pe ci fic al ly b arg ai ns fo r a se rv ic e, is to ld t h a t t h e s e rv ic e ha s b een pe rfo rm ed , i s ch arg ed fo r th e se rv ic e, an d do es no t in fact rece iv e
t h e s e r v ic e, it is no t ap pr op ria te fo r co ur ts to in qu ire in to whe th er t h e

se rv ic e “ real ly” ha d va lu e as a pr eco nd it io n to fin di ng th at in jury to bu si ne ss or pr op ert y ha s oc cu rred

. See Hell en ic Lin es , Ltd

. v. O’ Hearn

, 52 3 F. Su pp

. 24 4, 24 8 (S.D. N .Y. 19 81 ) (s ta ti ng th at RICO in jury is

pr ov ed whe re a c om

pa ny de m on st rat ed th at “ pa dd ed ” bi ll s res ul te d in

pa y m en t fo r se rv ic es no t re nd ered ).

The Gom ezes as se rt th ey “ pa id a pa dd ed bi ll fo r ap pr ai sa l se rv ic es an d, th eref or e, ha ve

st an di ng un de r RIC O.”

The Gom ezes ’ rel ia nc e on Po to m ac an d Hell en ic is m is pl aced

. As the di st ric t

co ur t no te d, ne it he r cas e is pe rs ua si ve be cau se th e pl ai nt iff s in th os e cas es “ al le g[ ed ]

-8

-th at th ey pa id fo r se rv ic es th ey di d no t rece iv e.” In co nt ras t, th e Gom ezes ad m it th ey

rece i v e d a p p r a is al se rv ic es an d pa id m ark et rat es fo r th os e se rv ic es

. The Gom ezes
si m pl y fai l t o a ll eg e a co nc ret e fi na nc ia l l os s as req ui red by RICO and AZRAC.

The Gom ezes ne xt arg ue th ei r “ ge ne ral al le ga ti on s ab ou t m ark et va lu e are

irr el ev an t” be cau se “ th e fai r m ark et va lu e of th e ap pr ai sa ls at is su e is m eas ur ed by th e

act ua l am ou nt s pa id by Rel s to th e ap pr ai se rs .” The Gom ezes co nt en d th ey were

ha rm ed whe n a pp el le es “ res et th e m ark et to th e le ve l th at [ap pe ll ees ] pa id th e

ap pr ai se rs bu t ch arg ed [th e Gom ezes ] far i n e xc es s o f th at ne w m ark et rat e.”

W e de cl in e th e Gom ez es ’ in vi ta ti on to ig no re th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s in th e

co m pl ai nt in fav or of a fla wed m et ho d of de te rm in in g fai r m ark et va lu e b e la te dl y

co nc ei ve d in an at te m

pt to av oi d di sm is sa l. By fo cu si ng ex cl us iv el y on on e pa rt of th e

ap pr ai sa l pr oc es s— th e fie ld w o rk —t he Gom ezes ’ su gg es te d m et ho d co m pl et el y ig no res th e ap pr ai sa l m an ag em en t se rv ic es th e Gom ezes ad m it Rel s pr ov id ed

. Mo re

im po rta nt ly, th e m ark et r a t e t h at m at te rs fo r de te rm in in g whe th er th e Gom ezes

su ffer ed a co nc ret e fin an ci al lo ss is th e m ark et rat e ch arg ed to bo rro wers , whi ch th e

Gom ezes ad m it di d n ot ch an ge as a res ul t o f th e ch al le ng ed pra ct ic es

.

Fi na ll y , th e Gom ezes co nt en d t he y su ffer ed a fi na nc ia l l os s b ecau se “ th ey di d

no t rece iv e an ap pr ai sa l wor th t h e a p p a r e n t m ark et va lu e fo r a va li d, in de pe nd en t

ap pr ai sa l.” Thi s arg um en t is un pe rs ua si ve

. The Gom ezes fai l to art ic ul at e an y de fect

in th ei r ap pr ai sa ls or an y di rect fin an ci al ha rm t h e y su ffer ed as a res ul t of th e

ap pr ai sa ls pe rfo rm ed on th ei r pr op ert y

. As Rel s po in ts ou t, th e pr im ary pu rp os e of an

ap pr ai sa l is to pr ot ect th e le nd er’s in te res ts by en su rin g t he va lu e of th e co ll at eral is

su ffi ci en t to se cu re th e lo an

. See 12 U.S

. C

. § 2 60 7( c) (al lo win g fo r “ a real es ta te

ap pr ai se r ch os en b y t h e le nd er to rep res en t th e le nd er’s in te res t in a real es ta te

tra ns act io n” ).

-9

-Bec au se th e Gom ezes di d no t pl au si bl y al le ge a co nc ret e fin an ci al lo ss cau se d

by a RICO vi ol at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th ey la ck ed st an di ng

un d e r R ICO an d AZRAC. See Bren na n v. Ch es tn ut

, 97 3 F.2 d 64 4, 64 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 92 ) (“ A RICO pl ai nt iff ha s st an di ng on ly if in jure d in hi s bu si ne ss or pr op ert y .”).

C. UCL Cla im

The Gom ezes all eg e Wells Farg o’s ap pr ai sa l pr oc es s vi ol at es th e UCL. “ The

U C L’ s pu rp os e is to pr ot ect bo th co ns um ers an d co m pe ti to rs by pr om ot in g fai r

co m pe ti ti on in co m

m erci al m ark et s fo r go od s an d se rv ic es .” Kas ky v. Nik e, In c., 45

P.3 d 24 3, 24 9 (Cal

. 20 02 ). A p l a i n t i f f ha s st an di ng to en fo rce th e UCL on ly if th e pl ai nt iff ha s “ su ffer ed in

jury in fact an d ha s lo st m on ey or pr op ert y as a res ul t of su ch

un fai r co m

pe ti ti on .” Pal m er v. St as si no s, 41 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 51

, 11 54 (N

. D

. Cal

. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Cal

. Bu s. & Pro f. Co de § 17 20 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

Th e Gom ezes cl ai m th ey ha ve st an di ng to as se rt th ei r cl ai m W el ls F a r g o
vi ol at ed th e UCL by ch arg in g m or e th an th e act ua l co st of th e ap pr ai sa l reg ard le ss of

th e ap pr ai sa l’s m ark et va lu e. In su pp or t, th e Gom ezes rel y on McKe ll v. W as h. Mu t.,

In c., 49 Cal

. Rp tr. 3d 22 7, 24 1 (Cal

. Ct

. App

. 20 06 ), in whi ch th e pl ai nt iff s al le ge d a
le nd er le d it s bo rro wers to be li ev e th e le nd er was ch arg in g th e bo rro wers fo r th e co st

of cert ai n th ird -p art y mo r t g a g e se rv ic es , “ whe n in real it y it [was ] ch arg in g th em

su bs ta nt ia ll y in ex ces s of su ch co st s.” The st at e ap pe ll at e co ur t de ci de d th e pl ai nt iff s

su ffi ci en tl y “ al le ge d un fai r b u s i n e s s pr act ic es wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e UCL,” id

.,

an d “ st at ed a UCL cau se of act io n fo r un la wfu l bu si ne ss pr act ic es ba se d on vi ol at io n

of RESPA,” i d. at 25 2- 53

.

McKe ll fai ls to su pp or t th e Gom ezes ’ arg um en t fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, th e co ur t

in McKe ll di d no t co ns id er th e q u e s t io n of st an di ng , a nd th e cas e ha s no pe rs ua si ve

va lu e fo r th at is su e. See San Dieg o Gas & Elec

. Co

. v. Su pe rio r Co ur t, 92 0 P.2 d 66 9,

69 9 (Cal

. 19 96 ) (ex pl ai ni ng “ [c]ase s are no t au th or it y , of co ur se , fo r is su es no t rai se d

an d re so lv ed ”).

-1 0-Seco nd

, un li ke th e Gom ezes , th e p la in ti ffs in McKe ll al le ge d th e le nd er

ov erch arg ed bo rro wers fo r m or tg ag e se rv ic es by ch arg in g th e bo rro wer m or e fo r th os e

se rv ic es th an th e le nd er pa id th e th ird -p art y se rv ic e pr o v i d e r

. S e e McKe ll

, 49 Cal

. Rp tr. 3d at 23 4. The re is no su ch al le ga ti on he re. The Gom ezes ad m it W el ls Farg o
ch arg ed th em m ark et r at es fo r ap pr ai sa l se rv ic es as di sc lo se d on th e se tt le m en t

st at em en ts

. In li gh t of th at ad m is si on , we ag ree wit h th e di st r i c t co ur t th at “ th e

co m pl ai nt can no t p l a u s i b l y al le ge th at th e Gom ezes ‘los t m on ey or pr op ert y ’ as a

res ul t o f W el ls Farg o’s co nd uc t.” Th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d is m is sa l was co rrec t.

D. RESPA Sect io n 8 (a )

The Gom ezes co nt en d th e “ di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y di sm is se d [th e Gom ezes ’]

cl ai m un de r Sect io n 8( a) of RESP A

, 12 U.S.C. § 26 07 (a), on th e gr ou nd th at [th e

Gom ezes ] fai le d to al le ge th at W el ls Farg o r e cei ve d a ‘thi ng of va lu e’ fro m Rel s in

ex ch an ge for refe rri ng work to it .” Sect io n 8 (a) p ro vi de s:

No pe rs on sh al l gi ve an d no pe rs on s h al l acce pt an y fee, ki ck ba ck , o r th in g of va lu e pu rs ua nt t o a n y ag reem en t or un de rs ta nd in g, or al or
ot he rwis e, th at bu si ne ss in ci de nt to or a pa rt of a real es ta te se tt le m en t

se rv ic e in vo lv in g a fed eral ly rel at ed m or tg ag e lo an sh al l be refe rred to

an y pe rs on

.

“ [T]he te rm ‘thi ng of va lu e’ in cl ud es an y pa y m en t, ad va nc e, fu nd s, lo an , se rv ic e, or

ot he r co ns id erat io n.” 12 U.S.C. § 26 02 (2 ). The re gu la ti on s fu rth er d efi ne th e te rm
br oa dl y to in cl ud e

wit ho ut li m it at io n, m on ie s, th in gs , di sc ou nt s, sa la rie s, c o m m is si on s, fees , du pl ic at e p ay m en ts of a ch arg e, st oc k, di vi de nd s, d is tri bu ti on s o f

pa rtn ers hi p pr of

it s, fran ch is e ro y al ti es , cred it s rep res en ti ng m on ie s th at

m ay be pa id at a f

u t u r e d a t e, th e op po rtu ni ty to pa rti ci pa te in a

m one y -m ak in g pr og ram , ret ai ne d or inc re as ed ea rn ing s, inc re as ed eq

uit y in a pa re n t or su bs id ia ry en ti ty, sp eci al ba nk de po si ts or acco un ts

, sp eci al or un us ua l ba nk in g te rm s, se rv ic es of al l types at sp eci al or free

-1 1-rat es , sa le s or ren ta ls at sp eci al pr ic es or rat es , le as e or ren ta l pa y m en ts ba se d in who le or in pa rt on th e am ou nt of bu si ne ss refe rred , t rip s an d

pa y m en t of an ot he r pe rs on ’s ex pe ns es , or red uc ti on in cred it ag ai ns t an

ex is ti ng ob li ga ti on

.

24 C.F.R. § 35 00 .14 (d ).

Th e Gom ezes al le ge W el ls Farg o “ vi ol at es RESPA’s pr oh ib it io n on ref e r r a l

fees be cau se it ge ts a th in g of va lu e— i.e.

, co nt ro l of th e ap p r a i s a l p r o ces s an d

ou tc om e” “ [a]s a qu id pr o qu o ex ch an ge fo r th e refe rral fro m W el ls Farg o to Rel s.”
App el le es co nt en d th e Gom ezes ’ al le ga ti on s of “ co nt ro l of th e ap pr ai sa l pr oc es s an d

res ul ts ” are to o di ffer en t in ki nd fro m th e k i ck ba ck s an d fees li st ed in th e st at ut or y

an d re gu la to ry

de fin it io ns to co ns ti tu te a th in g o f va lu e.

The Gom ezes ’ fai lu re to pr ov id e su pp or t fo r th ei r no ve l de fin it io n of th e te rm

“ th in g of va lu e” su gg es ts it is to o br oa d. Bu t ev en if we as su m e co nt ro l of th e

ap pr ai sa l res ul ts co ul d be a th in g of va lu e fo r pu rp os es of a RESPA Se c t io n 8( a)

vi ol at io n, th e Gom ezes ’ va gu e al le ga ti ons fa il pl au si bl y to al le ge Rel s pr ov id ed W el ls
Farg o su ch im

pr op er co nt ro l. Alt ho ug h th e Gom ezes ’ arg um en t is pr ed ic at ed on Rel s gi vi ng W el ls Farg o co nt ro l ov er th e a p p rai sa l res ul ts

, th e Gom ezes rep eat ed ly

em ph as iz e Rel s di d no t pe rfo rm th e a p p r ai sa ls

. In st ead

, th e Gom ezes al le ge Rel s

“ pe rfo r m ed no wor k an d pr ov id ed no ap pr ai sa l se rv ic es to ward co m pl et io n of th e

Gom ezes ’ ap pr ai sa l.”

The Gom ezes fai l to ex pl ai n ho w Rel s ab di c a t e d co nt ro l or im pr op erl y

m an ip ul at ed ap pr ai sa ls fo r W el ls Farg o’s be ne fit in ex ch an ge fo r refe rral s whe n, “ [i]n

fact

, Rel s Valu at io n do es no t ap pr ai se pr op ert ie s an d di d no t ap pr ai se th e Gom ezes ’

pr op ert y

. In st ead

, Rel s Valu at io n hi red an ap pr ai se r on it s ap pr ov ed li st ” an d “ m erel y
fo rward [ed ] th e ap pr ai sa l to W el ls Farg o or th e es cro w pr ov id er.” Not wit hs ta nd in g

th e Gom ezes ’ ba ld al le ga ti on s of co ll us io n, th e Gom ezes do no t pl au si bl y al le ge
ei th er Rel s or W el ls Farg o m ad e an y effo rt to in flu en ce or m an ip ul at e im pr op erl y th e

-1 2-res ul ts of ap pr ai sa ls pe rfo rm ed by ad m it te dl y “ in de pe nd en t [th ird -p art y ] ap pr ai se rs .”

Nor do th e Gom ezes art ic ul at e an y sp eci fic be ne fit W el ls Farg o pu rp or te dl y rece iv ed
by co nt ro ll in g th e res ul ts of th e ap pr ai sa ls pe rfo rm ed on th ei r pr op ert y , m uc h le ss th at

W el ls Farg o m an ip ul at ed th e ap pr ai sa ls to ob ta in su ch an im pr op e r b e n e fit to th e
de tri m en t o f th e Gom ezes

.

Ev e n if Rel s act ua ll y co m pl et ed th e ap pr ai sa ls

, th e Gom ezes wou ld ha ve to

al le ge m or e th an th e m ere fact of a refe rral an d th e po ss ib il it y of im pr op er co nt ro l to

su st ai n a cl ai m un de r Sect io n 8( a). Sect io n 26 07 (c) al lo ws W el ls Farg o to ch oo se a

“ real es ta te ap pr ai se r

. . . t o r e pr es en t [Wells Farg o’s] in te res t in a real es ta te

tra ns act io n.” Und er the Gom ezes ’ in te rp ret at io n of 12 U.S.C. § 26 02 (2 ), a pl ai nt iff

co ul d, si m

pl y by m ak in g va gu e al le ga ti on s of im pr op er co nt ro l, m ai nt ai n a Sect io n 8( a ) c la im an y ti m e a le nd er ex erci se s it s st at ut or y rig ht to ch oo se an ap pr ai se r or

ap pr ai sa l m an ag em en t co m pa ny. Su ch a n in te rp ret at io n is no t co ns is te nt wit h

Twom bl y

. See Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. at

__ _, 12 9 S. Ct

. at 19 49 (“ The pl au si bi li ty st an da rd

. . . as ks fo r m or e th an a sh eer p os si bi li ty tha t a d efen da nt ha s ac te d u nl awfu ll y .”).

E. RESPA Sect io n 8 (b)

The Gom ezes co nt en d th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de ci di ng th ey fai le d to al le ge
Rel s en ga ge d in fee sp li tt in g in vi o l a t i o n o f Sect io n 8( b) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C.
§ 2 60 7( b) . Sect io n 8 (b ) st at es :

No pe rs on sh al l gi ve an d no pe rs on sh al l acce pt an y p o r ti on , sp li t, or
pe rcen ta ge of an y ch arg e m ad e or rece iv ed fo r th e ren de rin g o f a r e a l

es ta te se tt le m en t se rv ic e in co nn ect io n wit h a tra ns act io n in vo lv in g a fed eral ly rel at ed m or tg a g e lo an ot he r th an fo r se rv ic es act ua ll y
pe rfo rm ed

.

In th e co m

pl ai nt

, th e Gom ezes al le ge Rel s vi ol at ed Sect io n 8( b) by “ rece iv in g

a p o r t i o n, sp li t an d pe rcen ta ge of a fee fo r th e ren de rin g of a real es ta te se tt l e men t

se rv ic e ot he r th an fo r se rv ic es act ua ll y pe rfo rm ed ” “ [b ]y c ha rg in g ap pr ai sa l fees in

-1 3-tra ns act io ns in whi ch [Rel s] ha [s ] no t pe rfo rm ed th e ap pr ai sa l whi ch are far in ex ces s

of th e act ua l co st of t h e a p p r a i s a l ch arg ed by a th ird pa rty.” W e ag ree wit h th e
di st ric t co ur t th at th is cl ai m is fo recl os ed by ou r de ci s i o n i n H a u g v. Ban k of Am

., N.A., 317 F.3d 83 2 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ).

In Hau g, we he ld “ Se c t i o n 8( b) is an an ti -k ic kb ack pr ov is io n th at

un am bi gu ou sl y req ui res at le as t two pa rti es to sh are a se tt le m en t fe e i n o r d e r to

vi ol at e th e st at ut e.” Id

. at 83 6. As su ch

, th e Hau gs ’ al le ga ti on th at th e ba nk ch arg ed

th em “ m or e fo r cert ai n se rv ic es th an [th e le nd er] pa id fo r th em ” di d no t st at e a cl ai m
be cau se “ an ov erch arg e, st an di ng alo ne , d oe s no t vi ol at e Sect io n 8( b) of R ESPA.”

Id

. The res ul t is th e sa m e he re. Bro ad ly co ns tru ed

, th e co m pl ai nt al le ge s an im

pr op er
marku p or si m

pl e ov erch arg e, no t fee sp li tt in g. Su ch al le ga ti on s do no t su p p o r t a

Sect io n 8( b) cl ai m un de r ou r co nt ro ll in g pr e c e d e nt

. See Hau g, 31 7 F.3 d at 84 0 7
(h ol di ng “ th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of Sect io n 8( b) req ui res pl ai nt iff s to pl ead fact s sh owi ng

th at th e d efen da nt il le ga ll y sh ared fees wit h a th ird pa rty”).

The Gom ezes ’ be la te d th eo ry of fee sp li tt in g al so fai ls

. Th e G om ezes ’

al le ga ti on s of a Sect io n 8( b) vi ol at io n in Co un t II fo cu s ex cl us iv el y on Rel s’s re cei pt

of pu rp or te dl y ex ces si ve ap pr ai sa l fees

. In res is ti ng Rel s’s m ot io n to di sm is s ba se d

u p o n ou r ho ld in g in Hau g, th e Gom ezes arg ue d fo r th e fir st ti m e “ th e W el ls Farg o

en ti ti es sh are in th e il le ga l fees by vi rtu e of th ei r own ers hi p in te res t in Rel s. Thi s
sh ari ng of fees fal ls wit hi n t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f [S]ect io n 8 (b ).” The on ly sup po rt

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s gr an te d cert io rari in Free m an v. Qui ck en Loa ns , In c., 7

62 6 F.3 d 79 9, 80 2 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. gr an te d,

__ _ U.S.

__ _, 13 2 S. Ct

. (2 01 1)

, to de te rm in e “ [w]het he r Sect io n 8 ( b ) o f R ESPA pr oh ib it s a real es ta te se tt le m en t

se rv ic es pr ov id er fro m ch arg in g an un earn ed fee o n l y if th e fee is di vi de d be twee n
two or m or e pa rti es .” The cas e sh ou ld res ol ve a sp li t b et ween th e Eig ht h, Se ve nt h,

Fo ur th an d no w th e Fi fth Ci rcu it s, al l of whi ch ha ve he ld a fee m us t be di vi de d wit h

a th ird pa rty to be act io na bl e, an d th e Seco nd

, Thi rd

, an d Elev en th Ci rcu it s (as well

as HUD) whi ch op in e a ch arg e in vo lv in g o nl y on e p art y

m ay vi ol at e Sec ti on 8(b ).

-1 4-t h e G o mez es co ul d m us te r fo r th ei r al te rn at iv e th eo ry of li ab il it y was on e ge ne r a l

al le ga ti on in a se ct io n of th e co m pl ai nt la be le d “ Part ie s” th at al le ge d Rel s “ is a joi nt

ve nt ur e be twee n Fi rs t Am eri can Rea l Est at e So lu ti on s, a su bs id ia ry of Fi rs t Am eri can

Co rp or at io n, an d W el ls Farg o Fo ot hi ll

, a su bs id ia ry of W el ls Farg o & Co

., th e pa ren t

of W el ls Farg o B an k.”

Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro ced ur e 8 (a)( 2) , whi ch set s fo rth th e ge ne ral rul es of
pl ead in g, req ui res “ a sh or t an d pl ai n st at em en t of th e cl ai m sh owi ng th at th e pl ead er
is en ti tl ed to rel ie f.” “ Each al le ga ti on m us t be si m

pl e, co nc is e, an d di rect .” Fed

. R.

Ci v. P. 8( d) (1 ). Thi s sh or t an d pl ai n st at em en t m us t “ pr ov id e th e de fen da nt wit h ‘fair

no ti ce of wha t th e pl ai nt iff ’s c la im is an d t he gro un ds up on whi ch it res ts .’ ” Eck ert

v. Tit an Tire Co rp ., 51 4 F.3 d 80 1, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Co nl ey v. Gib so n, 35 5

U.S. 41 , 47 (19 57 )).

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e c om pl ai nt di d “ no t al le ge or ev en su gg es t [th e

Gom ezes ’ al te rn at iv e] th eo ry of fee- sp li tt in g.” W e ag ree. “ W it ho ut s o m e fact ua l

al le ga ti on in th e c o mp l a in t, it is ha rd to se e ho w a cl ai m an t co ul d sa ti sf y th e

req ui rem en t of pr o v i d i n g no t on ly ‘fair no ti ce’ of th e na tu re of th e cl ai m , bu t al so ‘gro un ds ’ on whi ch th e cl ai m res ts .” Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 6 n.3

. B e c a us e th e

co m pl ai nt fai le d to pl ead su ffi ci en t fact s to gi ve Rel s fai r no ti ce of th e Gom ezes ’ fee

s p l i t t i n g th eo ry an d di d no t co nt ai n a si m pl e, co nc is e, an d di rect st at em en t of th e

al te rn at iv e gr ou nd s th e Gom ezes as se rte d to res is t di sm is sa l of th ei r RESPA Sect io n 8( b) cla im , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r in di sm is si ng th at cla im

.

F. Lea ve to Amend Compla in t

W e al so reject th e Gom ezes ’ as se rti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng

t h ei r cl ai m s wit h pr ejud ic e rat he r th an su a sp on te al lo win g th e Gom ezes le av e t o

am en d th e co m

pl ai nt a th ird ti m e. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 15

. “ A di st ric t co ur t do es no t

ab us e it s di sc ret io n in fai li ng to in vi te an am en de d co m pl ai nt whe n pl ai nt iff ha s no t

m ov ed to am en d an d su bm it te d a pr op os ed am en de d pl ead in g.” Dro bn ak v. And ers en

-1 5-Co rp ., 56 1 F.3 d 77 8, 78 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Mee ha n v. Uni te d Co ns um ers Cl ub

F r a n c h i s i ng Co rp ., 31 2 F.3 d 90 9, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ).

Des pi te ap pe ll ees ’ de ta il ed m ot io ns fo r di sm is sa l, th e Gom ezes ch os e to st an d

on th ei r co m

pl ai nt

, co nf

id en t th ei r al le ga ti on s were su ffi ci en t. The di st ric t co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in acce pt in g th e Gom ezes ’ st rat eg ic de ci si on no t to am en d th e

co m pl ai nt

. See Mi ta n v

. M c N i e l

, 39 9 F. App ’x 14 4, 14 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(u np ub li sh ed pe r cu ria m ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e di st ric t co ur t “ di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n

in de nyin g [th e pl ai nt iff ’s] po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d, be cau se he

ch os e to st an d on hi s pl ead in gs in th e face of th e m ot io n to di sm is s, whi ch id en ti fie d

th e v ery de fic ie nc y

up on whi ch th e co ur t d is m is se d t he co m pl ai nt ”).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-