N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEPHEN YAGM AN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PAUL LEW IS GAB B ER T,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-55904 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-06989-FM O-M A N
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 7, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ, B ER

ZON, a n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Ste phe n Ya gm an a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

niz a tions Ac t (“ R IC O” ) c la im without le ave to a m e nd, a n d his re m a i ning sta

te -law c la im s without pre judic e . W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
MAR 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing Ya gm an’ s c ivil R IC O c la im from his First Am e n de d C o m

pla int. Am ong othe r de fe c ts, Ya gm an did not
a de quate ly

a lle ge a patte rn of ra c ke te e ring a c tivity suffic ie nt pla

usibly to sta te a
c ivil R IC O c la im
. S

e e Ec le c t ic Props. E., LLC v . Marc us & Millic hap C o. , 751 F.3d 990, 997 (9th C ir. 2014). Ya gm an a lle ge s in ge ne ra l te rm s , “ [o] n inform a tion a nd be lie f,” tha

t the R IC O e nte rprise ’ s a c t ivitie s ha v e oc c urre d on m any

oc c a sions “ ove r the pa st 10 y e ars,” c onstituting “ a t le a st thre e se pa ra te a c ts.” He a l le ge s a

re lationship be twe e n Ga

bbe rt’ s “ wrongful a c ts” in tha t “ the y e vide nc e c ivil R

IC O pre dic a te s,” but doe s not suffic ie ntly e l a borate on the se a c ts or the ir c om m on c ha ra c te ristic s. Nor doe s Ya gm an pla

usibly a lle ge a thre a t of c ontinue d c rim ina l a c tivity , a s Ga bbe rt withdre w from

re pre se nting Ya gm an’ s inte re sts in 2013, a nd the pa st
m isre pre se ntations Ya gm a n a lle ge s a

re insuffic ie nt to e sta

b lish there quisite patte rn. Se e Ste am Pre

ss Holdings, Inc . v . Haw aii Te amste rs, Allie d W ork e rs Union, Loc al 996 , 302 F.3d 998, 1011 (9th C ir. 2002). Ya gm an’ s nonspe c i fic R IC O a lle gations the re fore c annot survivea m otion to dismiss. Se e W

oods v . U.S. Bank

N .A. , 831 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th C ir. 2016); se e also Sanford v

. Me mbe rW ork s, Inc
. , 625 F.3d 550, 557–58 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a use Ya gm an

ha s not pla

u sibly a lle ge d a substa ntive R IC O viola

tion, his
2c onspira c y

c la im unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1962(d) fa i ls a s we ll. S e e id. at 559. Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Ya gm an furthe r opportunity

to a m e nd his R

IC O c la im . The distric t c ourt pe rm itte d Ya g m an to
am e nd his origina

l c o m pla int. Ya gm an m a de only m inim a l c ha

n ge s, a nd his First Am e nde d C om

pla int c ontinue d to la c k the fa c t s ne c e ssa ry to support a

R IC O
c la im . “ A distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to de ny le ave to a

m e nd is pa

rtic ula rly broa d whe re the pla intiff ha s pre v iously am e nde d .” Salame h v

. Tarsadia Hote l , 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th C ir. 2013) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omi tte d). The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t furthe r am e ndm e nt of the RIC O c la im

would be futile , a

nd thus in de c lining to gra nt Ya gm an furthe r le ave to a m e nd it. 2. The distric t c ourt like wise did not e rr in c onc luding tha t the pa rtie s la c ke d dive rsity be c a use Ya gm a

n wa s dom ic ile d in C a lifornia , rathe r tha n Ne wYork, a

t the t im e he file d this la

wsuit. Se e Le w

v . Moss , 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ [D] om ic ile for purpose s of dive rsity is de te rm ine d a s of the tim e the la wsuit is file d .” ). 1 “ [A] pe rson is dom ic ile d in a loc a tion whe re he or she ha s e sta blishe d a fixe d ha bita tion or a bode in a pa rtic ula r pla c e , a nd inte nds to re m a in the re

1 Ya gm an wa s not e ntitle d to ha ve a jury de te rm ine his domic ile
. Se e Robinson v . Unite d

State s , 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th C ir. 2009); Sinc lair v . Spatoc c o , 452 F.2d 1213, 1213 (9th C ir. 1971) (pe r c uriam ). 3pe rm ane ntly or inde finite ly .” Id. a t 749–50 (interna l quota tion m arks, bra c ke ts,
and c ita tions omitte d). Ac c ordingly , “ dom ic i le inc lude s a subje c tive a s we ll a s a

n obje c tive c o m

pone nt, a lthough the

subje c tive c om

pone nt m ay

be e s ta blishe d by obje c tive fa c tors.” Gaudin v . Re mis , 379 F.3d 631, 637 (9th C ir. 2004). Se ve ra l fa c tors a

re re le va nt to thedom ic ile inquiry , with no single fa c tor
c ontrolling. Se e Le w , 797 F.2d a t 750–52. The s e fa c tors inc l ude c urre nt re s ide nc e , voting information, loc a t ion of prope rty , loc a tion of broke ra ge and ba nk a c c ounts, loc ation of spouse

and fam ily , pla c e of e m

ploy m e nt, drive r’ s lic e nse and
a utom obile re gistra

tion, pa ym e nt of ta

xe s, a n d m e m be rship in unions or othe

r orga niz a tions. Se eid. a t 750.

“ The fa c tua l de te rm inations ne c e ssa ry to e sta b lish dive rsity

jurisdic tion a

re
re vie we d for c l e ar e rror.” K

rosk e v . U.S. Bank C

orp. , 432 F.3d 976, 979 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt found tha t se ve ra l obje c tive fa c tors we ighe d in fa vor of C a lifornia dom ic ile and did not c le arly e rr in doing so. Ya gm an doe s not dispute that he c urre n tly

re side s e xc lusive ly

in C a lifornia

and ha s re side d only in C a lifornia sinc e 2009. Although he ha s som e re lative s loc a te d in Ne wYork, his spouse re side s in C a lifornia and Florida , not Ne w York. Ya gm an re pre se n ts tha t the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt re quire s him to ha ve a ba nk a c c ount, whic h

he m a i nta ins in C a lifornia . Ya gm an

ha s a C a lifornia

drive r’ s lic e nse , whic h

he a l so c la im s the
4gove rnm e nt re q uire s him to ha v e , a s we ll a s a

Ne wYork drive r’ s lic e nse , but his Ne w York drive r’ s lic e nse be ars a C a lifornia

a ddre ss. Ya gm an’ s profe ssiona l a c tivitie s a lso tie him to C a lifornia . Although Ya gm an wa s at one point a m e m be r of both theNe w York a nd C a lifornia

ba rs, he did not se e k re i nsta

t e m e n t in Ne w York a fte r his m e m be rship wa s suspe n de d in 1999, but a

ppa re ntly did a pply for re insta

t e m e nt in C a lifornia

a fte r a 1998 suspe n sion. He the n pra c tic e d in C a lifornia for m any y e a rs. Afte r be ing disba

rre d, Ya gm an c ontinue d to work a s a pa ra le ga l for his form e r la

wpa rtne rs. Ya gm an
c onte nds tha

t his work wa s unc om

pe nsate d a

nd did not ne c e s sa

rily oc c ur in C a lifornia , but theform e r partne rs for whom he worke d a

re ba se d in C a lifornia , ra ising theinfe re nc e tha

t his profe ssiona l a c tivitie s c o ntinue d to oc c ur in tha

t sta te through 2014. 2 Ya gm an doe s ha

ve som e tie s to Ne w York, inc luding voter re g istra tion a nd voting until 2007, jury

se rvic e until 2007, a

nd a l le ge d

owne rship of re a l prope rty in Ne w York. An orde r by

Judge M orrow in 2005 a l so sugge sts Ya gm an c ould show Ne w York dom ic ile at tha t tim e . Orde r, EC F No. 15, Yagman v . Mark o v i c h , 2:05-
c v-01745-M M M -PJW (C
. D. C a l. June 27, 2005). B ut e ve n if the se fa c ts we re

2 Ya gm an ha s pe rsona l prope rty in Ne w York, C a lifornia , and Florida , so this fa c t or is ne utra l with re spe c t to domic ile . Ya gm an a lso m a i nta i ns he ha s pa id no sta te taxe s sinc e a

pproxim ate ly

2007. 5suffic i e nt to e sta blish tha t Ya gm an pre viously

wa s dom ic i le d in Ne w York, Ga bbe rt ha s c arrie d his burde n to show tha t Ya g m a n ’ s dom i c ile sinc e ha s c h ange d to C a lifornia
. Se e Mondragon v . C apital One

Auto Fin. , 736 F.3d 880, 885 (9th C ir. 2013). At the

tim e this la

wsuit wa s file d in 2014, Yagm an re side d only in C a lifornia , a

n d the we ight of theothe r re le va nt obje c tive fa c tors showe d “ an inte ntion to re m a in the re inde finite ly ,” notwithsta nding Ya gm a

n ’ s a s se rtion to the
c ontra ry . Se e Le w , 797 F.2d a

t 750. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not err in c o n c luding Ya gm a n wa s dom ic ile d in C a lifornia

and thus tha

t the pa rtie s la c k e d

dive rsity
. Nor did the distric t c o urt a

buse its disc re tion in dism issing without pre

j udic e the re m a inde r of Ya gm an’ s sta

te -law c la im s. Se e Sanford , 625 F.3d a

t 561. AFFIRM E D. 3

3 W e de ny a s m oot Ya gm an’ s re que s ts for judic ia l notic e . 6