N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AOUL C LYM ER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. KEVIN ELDER , e t al. , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55309 D.C . No. 5:11-C V-01414 VAP 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 Virginia A. Phillips, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 8, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ER

Z ON, C HR ISTEN, a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s . R a oul C ly

m e r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his First Ame n de d C om pla int (FAC ), whic h a lle ge d viola tions of theR a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

niz at ions Ac t

(R IC O), 18 U.S.C
. § 1961 e t se q. , a nd se ve ra l pe nde nt sta te la w c a use s of a c tion. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED DEC 05 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 36-3.1. The Assignm e nt of Inte re st from C ly m e r’ s brothe r, B e n C l ym e r, did not c onve y

a RIC O c a u se of a c tion. Thea ssignm e nt purporte d to tra nsfe r “ one ha lf of the inte re st in thePim lic o R an c h prope rty and a ny of [B e n C ly

m e r’ s] rights, titleand inte re st in said property .” (e m p ha sis a dde d). The ha

ndwritte n phra se

“ c h ose of a c tion” wa s inte rline ate d be t we e n the words “ rights” and “ title .” Assum ing tha

t the “ c h ose of a c tion” inte rline ation wa s a dde d at the
a ppropria te tim e , a nd a l so a ssum ing tha

t the la ngua ge of the a ssignm e nt is
am biguous re ga

rding whe the r the “ one ha lf” m odifie r a pplie s to thela

ngua ge a fte r

“ an d,” t he a ssignm e nt ove ra ll c onc e rne d only whate ve r prope r ty inte re st B e n C ly m e r m ight ha

ve ha d in Pimlic o R anc h. The a ssignm e nt did not en c om pa ss the
c irc um s ta nc e s of the origina l loa

n tra nsa c tion, whic h wa s the ba sis of C ly m e r’ s R IC O c a use of a c t ion. At most, thea ssignm e nt c onve y e d the right to sue for any injury to the prope rty , not for a lle ge d fra u d ba se d on theunde rly ing loa n. C ly m e r wa s not him se lf a

pa rty to the origina l loa

n tra nsa c tion. Absent a prope r a ssignm e nt, C ly

m e r la c ke d sta

nding to a s se rt the RIC O c la im a lle ge d
. B e c a use C l ym e r’ s RIC O c la im wa s the only

ba sis for fe de ra l jurisdic tion c i te d in the FAC , the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the a c tion. 1

1 B e c a use we hold tha

t C ly m e r wa s ne ve r a ssigne d the right to pursue his R IC O c la im , we a lso hold tha t C ly m e r’ s subse que nt a ssignm e nt of a de e d of trust in the Pim lic o R anc h prope rty to Atia Group, LLC , is irre l e va

nt to this ac tion, whe the r or not it purporte d to a ssign a ny c a use of a c tion. W e the re fore de ny both (c ontinue d...)2. C ly m e r re que sts tha

t we ta ke judic ia l notic e of his m otion to alte r or am e nd the judgm e nt pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 59, whic h wa s sta m p e d “ re c e ive d but not file d” an d not inc lude d in the re c ord. “ [W ] e m ay ta ke notic e of proc e e dings in other c ourts, both within a nd without the

fe de ra l judic ia l sy ste m , if thoseproc e e d ings ha ve a dire c t re lat ion to m atte rs at issue .” Trigue ros v . Adams , 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d);
se e a lso Fe d. R . Evid. 201(b). As C ly m e r now c ha lle nge s the re fusa l to e nte rta in the R ule 59 m otion, C l ym e r’ s first re que st for judic ia l notic e is gra nte d. C ly m e r’ s R ule 59 m otion wa s, howe ve r, untim e ly . C ly m e r’ s m otion indic ate d tha

t B e n C ly m e r wa s willing to be

joine d in thea c tion, whic h would ha ve c ure d one of the de fic ie nc i e s ide ntifie d by the distric t c ourt in its dism issa l of C ly m e r’ s initial c om

pla int, a nd re ite rate d in its dism

i ssa l of the FAC . C ly

m e r’ s m otion wa s da

te d Fe brua

ry 14, 2013, a

n d the sta m p on them otion indic ate s tha t it
wa s re c e i ve d in the distric t c ourt on thesa m e da y , twe nty -nine da

y s a fte r the distric t c o urt’ s orde r date d Ja nua ry 16, 2013 dism

issing the FAC . “ A m o t ion to
a lte r or am e nd a

judgm e nt m

ust be file d no la

te r tha n 28 da y s a fte r the e ntry

of the judgm e nt.” Fe d . R . C iv. P. 59(e ). The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to

1 (...c ontinue d) a ppe lle e s’ re que s t for judic ia l notic e and C ly m e r’ s se c ond re que st for judic ia l notic e .c onside r C ly m e r’ s m otion. AFFIRM E D.