N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N U NITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ESTATE OF JOHNSON C LAR K a nd ESTATE OF LOUISE H. C L ARK,

Pla i ntiffs, and PETER C A R SON C LAR

K, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. W ILLIAM HOR

W IC H; e t a l ., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. N o. 1 2-17064 D .C . No. 3:12-c v-00137-C RB M EM O R ANDUM *

ESTATE OF JOHNSON C LAR K; ESTATE OF LOUISE H. C L ARK,

Pla i ntiffs, and PETER C A R SON C LAR

K, Pla i ntiff - Appe lle e , No. 12-17577 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00137- C RB



# FIL ED SEP 23 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.v.

W ILLIAM HOR

W IC H; e t a l ., De fe nda n ts - Appe lla

nts, and JON B ERKLEY M ANAGEM ENT, INC .; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C o urt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 1, 2016 ** San Franc isc o, C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Pe te r C l ark a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his a m e nde d c om pla i nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err by dism issing C la

rk’ s c la im s tha

t a rose be fore he file d for C ha pte r 11 ba nkruptc y . “ [T] he ba

nkruptc y truste e [ha s] the e xc lusive right to sue on be ha lf of the e sta t e .” Estate

of Spirtos v. OneSan Be rnardino C ounty

** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 2Supe rior C

ourt C ase , 443 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th C ir. 2006). C la rk doe s not ha

ve sta nding to bring those c la im s. C la rk’ s only post-pe tition c l a im

is his R IC O c la im , a

nd the distric t c ourt did not e rr by dism issing it. To prove

a R IC O c l a im , C la

rk ha d to show: “ (1) c onduc t (2) of an e nte rprise (3) through a patte rn (4) of ra c k e te e ring a c tivity (known a s

‘ p re dic ate a c ts’ ) (5) c a

using injury

to pla intiff’ s busine ss or prope rty .” Unite d Bhd. of C arpe nte rs & J

oine r s of Am. v . Bldg. &C

o nst. Trade

s De p’t, AFL-C

IO , 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th C ir. 2014). C la rk a lle g e d tha

t De fe nda nts e nga ge d in va

rious ty pe s of
m a il fra ud, wire fra

ud, a nd ba nkruptc y fra ud. The s e c ha

rge s c a n se rve a s RIC O pre d ic ate a c ts, but he re , C la rk did not provide

suffic ie nt fa c t

ua l a l le gat ions “ to ra ise a right to re lie f a

bove the spe c ulative le ve l.” B e ll Atlantic C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). B e c a use C la rk did not properly

a l le ge any

pre d ic at e a c ts by De fe nda nts, a nd be c a use the distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de c ide d tha t any am e n dm e nts would be futile , the distric t c ourt did not err by dism issing his R

IC O c la i m . The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d C la

rk’ s m otion to c om

pe l a rbitration unde r the Fe de ra l Arbitra

tion Ac t (FAA). “ [T] he FAA doe s not itse lf c onfe r jurisdic tion on fe de ra l distric t c o urts ove r a c tions to c o m pe l a rbitration or to c onfirm

or va c ate arbitration a

wards, nor doe s it c re ate a fe de ra l c a

use of a c tion giving rise to fe de ra l que stion jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1331.” U nite d State

s v . Park Plac e 3Assoc i ate

s, Ltd. , 563 F.3d 907, 918 (9th C ir. 2009) (c i tation omitte d). Ha v ing dism isse d C la

rk’ s R IC O c la im

— his only ba sis for fe d e ra l jurisdic tion— the distric t c ourt did not err by de ny ing C la rk’ s m otion to c om

pe l a rbitrat ion. For thesa

m e re a s on, the distric t

c ourt did not err in dism issing C l ark’ s sta te la w c la im s without pre j udic e . La st, the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing De fe nda

nts’
m otion for a

pre filing orde r. A pre filing orde r is a n “ e xtre m e re m e dy ” tha

t should be use d “ only in e x ige n t

c irc um sta

nc e s,” De Long v . He n ne

sse y , 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th C ir. 1990), a

nd we c annot sa

y tha t the de c ision not to im

pose one in the proc e e dings be low wa s a

n a buse of disc re tion. AFFIR M ED.

4