T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D F OO D & C OMME R C I AL WOR KE R S C E NT R AL P E NN S YL VA NI A & R E GI ON AL H E A L T H & W E L F A R E F U N D , e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. A M G E N , I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 56118 D . C. N o . 0 8 - M L- 0 1 9 3 4 PSG ( A G R x) ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hi l i p S . G ut i e rr e z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r8, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , D . W . N E L S O N an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED OC T 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A p p e lla n ts ’ c o m p la in t c a n n o t s u rv iv e am o tio n to d is m is s b e c au s e it f a ile dto p lead it s a ll eg atio n s o f f ra u du n d erR IC O , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 2 (c ), an dC alifo rn ia’s U nf a i rC om pe t i t i on L a w ( “ U C L ” ) , C a l . B us . & P r of . C ode § 17200 et

se q ., w ith p a rtic u la r ity . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 9 ( b ) ; see a l so Ke arns v . Ford MotorC o. , 567 F . 3d 11 20 , 11 24 -25 (9th C i r. 20 09 ); A lan N e um an P r ods . , I

nc . v . A lbr i

ght , 862 F . 2d 1388, 1392 ( 9th C i r . 1988) . T he c om pl a i ntdi d noti de nt i f ys t a t e m e nt s or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ma d e b yA mg e n th a tw e r e l i t e r a l l yf a l s e o rmi s l e a d i n g a tth e t i me th e yw e r e m a d e , a s r e q u ir e din ac iv il R I C O a c tio n b a s e do n m a il a n dw ir e f r au d . See Sc hr e i be rD is tr i b. C o. v . Se rv - W e l l Furni tur e C o. , 806 F . 2d 1393, 1399- 1401 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ; s e e al

s o 18 U . S . C . §§ 13 41 (m ai l fr aud), 13 43 (w i re fr aud), 1962( c ) ( R I C O ) . N ordi d the c om pl a i nti de nt i f ym a t e r i a l om i s s i ons i n de r oga t i on o f a n in d e p e n d e n t s ta tu to ryo rf id u c ia ryd u tyto d is c lo s e . Cal. A r c hi te c tur al B ldg. P r ods . , I nc . v . Fr anc is c an C e r am i c s , I nc ., 8 1 8 F .2 d1 4 6 6 , 1 4 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . T h o u g h th e c o m p la in t a lle g e dth a t A m g e n c o n c e a le da d v e r s e te s t r e s u lts w h ile pr om ot i ng A r a ne s p a nd E poge n f orva r i ous of

f - l abe l us e s , the c om pl a i ntdi d not id e n tif ya n yc o n c e a le ds tu d yr e s u lts th a t in v o lv e dth e d ru g s a n du s e s th a t A m g e n is al l eged t o h ave di re ct l y prom ot ed, and A pp el l ant s c on fi rm ed atoral ar gu m entthat th e r e w e r e n o n e .3

M o r e o v e r , th e c o m p la in t f a ile dto p le a dac o g n iz ab le th e o ryo f p r o x im a te c au s a tio n th a t lin k s A m g e n ’s a lle g e dm is c o n d u c t to A p p e lla n ts ’ a lle g e din ju ry . B r i dge v . P hoe ni

xB ond & I

nde m . C o. , 553 U . S . 639, 654- 55 ( 2008) . I ns t e a d, the c om pl a i ntpr of

f e r e d a n a tt e nua t e d c aus a l c ha i n tha ti nvol ve d a tl e a s tf our i nde pe nde ntl i nks , na m e l y , ( 1) the U S P - D I ’ s l i s t i ng of A r a ne s p f

ora ne m i aof c a nc e r , ( 2) M e di c a r e ’ s de c i s i on t o c ove rA r a ne s p f ora ne m i aof

c a nc e r , ( 3) thi r dp a rtyp a y o r s ’ d e c is io n to c o v e rA r a n e s p f o ra n e m iao f

c a n c e r( in a d d itio n to c ove r i ng A r a ne s p f

ora ne m i ai n he a rtf

a i l ur e pa t i e nt s a nd c a nc e rdi r e c t l y , a nd E poge n f ora l l of the s e us e s ) , a nd ( 4) doc t or s ’ de c i s i ons t o pr e s c r i be A r a ne s p a nd Ep o g e n f o rth e s e u s e s . Th i s c au s a l th e o ryi s t o o a tt e n u a t e dt o s a t i s f yth e Sup r e me C o u rt’s p r o x im a te c au s a tio n r e q u ir e m e n t in th e R I C O c o n te x t. Se e H e m iG r oup, L L Cv. C i t

y o f N ew Y o rk , 130 S . C t . 983, 989 ( 2010) ( quot i ng H olm es v. Sec. I nv es torP r ot. C or

p. , 50 3 U . S . 25 8, 26 8, 27 1, 27 4 (19 92 )) . T h e co m p l ai n tal so fai l edt o sat i sfy R u l e 9 (b ) w i th resp ectt o i t s U C L cl ai m s, Ke arns , 56 7 F . 3d at11 25 , because i tdi d n otexpl ai n w hy A m gen’ s c on du ctw as f r au d u le n t, i d. , o ra lle g e a n a d e q u a te th e o ryo f c au s a tio n o rr e lia n c e . In re T ob acco II Cases , 4 6 C a l. 4 th 2 9 8 , 3 0 6 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e al s o H al l v . T i m e I nc . , 158 C a l . A pp. 4 th . 8 4 7 , 8 5 5 - 5 6 & n n . 2 - 3 ( C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) . B e c au s e th e c o m p la in t s o u n d e din f r au d , a ll o f

its a lle g a tio n s a r e s u b

je c t to R u le 9 ( b ) ’s p le a d in g r e q u ir e m e n ts .4

Ke arns , 5 6 7 F .3 da t 1 1 2 5 ; V es s v . C i ba- G e i

gyC or p. U SA , 317 F . 3d 1097, 1103- 04 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . C ons e que nt l y , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt i n i t s en t i rety, i n cl u d i n g i t s U C L “ u n l aw fu l ” an d“ u n fai r” cl ai m s. A pp el l ant s’ fa i l ure t o add the re qu i si t e part i cul ar i ty t o the com pl ai nt , even a f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r e v io u s lyg r a n te dA p p e lla n ts le a v e to a m e n dw ith s p e c if ic i ns truc t i ons abouthow t o c ur e the de f e c t s i n the c om pl a i nt , i s “ ‘ as tr ong i ndi c a t i on thatthe pl ai nt i ff

s have no add i t i on al fa ct s t o p l ea d. ’ ” Zucco P artners , L L Cv. D i gi m ar c C or

p. , 552 F . 3d 981, 1007 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng I n r e V ant i v e C or

p. Se c . L i t i g. , 2 8 3 F .3 d1 0 7 9 , 1 0 9 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 )) . M o re o v er , a d istrict co u rt’s di s c r e t i on t o de nyl e ave t o a m e nd i s “ pa rt i c ul a r l ybr oa d” w he r e , a s he r e , the p la in tif f h a s p r e v io u s lyf

ile da n a m e n d e dc o m p la in t. Chodos v . W es t P ubl ’ g C o. , 292 F . 3d 992, 1003 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng G r i ggs v . P ac e A m . G r

p. , I nc . , 170 F . 3 d8 7 7 , 8 7 9 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 )) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). B ecau se A ppe l l a nt s ha ve pr e vi ous l yf a i l e d t o r e m e dythe de f

e c t s i n the i rc om pl a i nt , a nd th o s e d e f e c ts ap p e a rto b e in c u r ab le , L eadsi ng er , Inc. v. B M G Musi c P ub l ’g , 512 F . 3d 522, 532 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Fo m a n v . D a v is , 37 1 U . S . 17 8, 18 2 (19 62 )) , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng A ppe l l a nt s ’ c om pl a i nt w i th p re j ud i ce . A FFI R M ED .