N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GER ALDINE TRIC E, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. JP M OR GAN C HASE B ANK, N.A.; e t a l., De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15663 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01614-APGNJK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Ge ra ldine Tric e a

p pe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing he r a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a n d sta te la w c la im s a

rising from

fore c losure proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)(6), a

nd we m ay

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Tric e ’ s fra

udule nt m isre pre se ntation c la im be c a use Tric e fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to show tha t de fe nda nts La rse n , W e be r and the la

w firm Sm ith La rse n & W ixom

(the “ Attorne y

De fe nda nts” ) m a de fa lse re pre se ntations to her. Se eBulbman, Inc . v . N e v ada Be ll, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (Ne v. 1992) (se tting forth e le m e nts of fra u dule nt m isre pre se ntat ion c la im unde r Ne va da la w). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Tric e ’ s c la im

for c ivil rights viola

tions unde r 42 U.S.C . §§ 1983, 1985 a nd 1986 be c a

use Tric e fa ile d

to e sta blish tha t a ny of the a ppe lle e s we re a c ting under c olor of sta te la w. Se e W e st v . Atk ins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (e le m e nts of a c la im unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983); Se v e r v . Alask a Pulp C orp ., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th C ir. 1992) (e l e m e nts of c la i m unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1985(3)); Tre ric ev . Pe de r se n , 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th C ir. 1985) (“ [A] c a use of a c tion is not provide d unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1986 a bse nt a va lid c la im

for re lie f unde r [§] 1985.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Tric e ’ s R a c k e te e r Influe nc e d a n d C orrupt Orga

niz at ions Ac t

(“ RIC O” ) c la im

be c a use Tric e fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts 1 6 - 1 5 6 6 3 2suffic i e nt to sta te a pla u siblec l a im a ga inst theAttorne y De fe nda nts. Se eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to a void dism i ssa l, “ a c om pla int m ust c o nta in suffic i e nt fa c tua l m atte r, a c c e p te d a s true , to sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e ” (c ita

tion omitte d)); Sanford v . Me mbe rW ork s, Inc . , 625 F.3d 550, 557 (9th C ir. 2010) (e le m e nts of R IC O c la im). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the RIC O c la i m a g a inst de fe nda

nts JPM orga n C ha se B a

nk, N.A. a

nd C a lifornia

R e c onve y an c e C om

pa ny a s ba rre d by the d oc trine of issuepre c lusion be c a use the c la im

wa s pre dic ate d

on issue s tha

t have be e n re s olve d a ga inst Tric e in he r prior sta te c ourt a c tions a ga i nst the s e de fe nda nts. LaForge

v . State , Univ . & C

mty . C oll. Sy s. of N e v . , 997 P.2d 130, 133 (Ne v. 2000) (“ The ge ne ra l rule of issuepre c lusion is tha t if a n issueof fa c t or la

w wa s a c tua lly

litiga te d a nd de te rm ine d by

a va lid a nd fina l judgm e nt, the de te rm i nation is c onc lusivein a subse que nt a c t ion be twe e n the pa rtie s” (c i tation om i tte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dismi ssing Tric e ’ s c om pla i nt without le ave to a

m e nd be c a

use an am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se eAlbre c ht v . Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th C ir. 1988) (se tting forth sta n d ard of re vie w a n d e xpla i ning tha

t dismissa l without le ave to a m e nd is not a

n a buse of disc re tion if a

m e ndm e nt

would befutile ). 1 6 - 1 5 6 6 3

3W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in theope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). All pe nding m otions a

nd re que sts a

re de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 6 - 1 5 6 6 3 4