N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ILLIE OGDEN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA,

De fe nda n t,
and GR ANT KW O K; YIM FONG KW OK; HOWARD HSU,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55373 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-03579-DM G-SH
M EM O R ANDUM *

M ILLIE OGDEN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , and No. 15-55374 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-03579-DM G-SH 

# F IL ED
JAN 03 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.GR

ANT KW O K; YIM FONG KW OK; HOWARD HSU,

De fe nda n ts. 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 Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, B EA, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. M illie Ogde n a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l with pre judic e of he r R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

niz ations Ac t (“ R IC O” ) c la im s a ga inst Grant Kwok, Yim Fong Kwok, Howa rd Hsu (c olle c tive ly , “ the individual de fe nda n ts” ), and W e lls Fa

rgo B ank, N.A. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd a ffirm
. 1 To sta te a R IC O c la im , a

pla i ntiff m

ust a lle ge , am ong othe r things, tha t a n
e nte rprise ’ s ra c ke te e ring a c tivitie s proxim ate ly c a use d, i.e ., “ le d

dire c tly to,” he r injurie s. Se e Anza v . Ide al Ste e l Supply C orp. , 547 U.S. 451, 461 (2006). He re , Ogde n ’ s Se c ond Am e n de d C o m pla int (“ SAC ” ) doe s not pla usibly a lle g e tha

t a ny of the a lle ge d

e nte rprise s ’ a c tions proximate ly c a use d he r injurie s. Se e

, e . g. ,
1 As the pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we re sta te the m he re only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. 2Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“ To survive a m otion to dism

i ss, a
c om pla i nt m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c tua l m atte r, a c c e p te d a s true , to ‘ sta t e a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e .’ ” (quoting Be ll Atl. C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007))). R a the r, the SAC indic ate s tha t C e s ar Asc arrunz ’ s a c tions dire c tly le d to Ogde n’ s a lle g e d injurie s a n d are the re fore a

supe rse ding c a

use inte rrupting the“ dire c t

re lation be twe e n the injury a sse rte d a nd the injurious
c onduc t a lle ge d.” Holme s v . Se c . Inv ’r Prot. C

orp. , 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992). While Asc arrunz m ay

have be e n a

pa rt of one of the a lle ge d e n te rprise s at som e point in tim

e , he c le arly

wa s not whe n he took his a c tions a ga inst Ogde n. Se e , e .g. , Re v e s v . Ernst &

Young , 507 U.S. 170, 185 (1993) (sta t ing tha t RIC O “ l ia

bility de pe nds on showing tha

t the de fe nda

nts c o nduc te d or pa

rtic ipate d in the c onduc t of the ‘ e nte rprise ’s a ffa i rs,’ not just the ir ow n a ffa irs” (quoting 18 U.S.C . § 1962(c )). As a re sult, proxima te c a

usation is wa

n ting in this c a se and the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Ogde n’ s R IC O c la im s a ga inst theindividual de fe nda n ts m ay be
a ffirm e d on tha

t ground. Se e

, e .g. , ASARC O, LLC v . Union Pac . R.R. C o. , 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th C ir. 2014) (noting tha t a distric t c ourt m ay

be a ffirm e d “ on
any ground supporte d

by the re c ord” ). Additiona lly , be c a

use the SAC fa ils to sta

te a R IC O c la im

a ga inst Gra

nt Kwok, it a lso fa ils to sta

te a R IC O c la im

a ga inst his form e r e m

ploy e r W e lls Fa

rgo.
3Se e Ok

i Se mic onduc tor C

o. v . W e lls Fargo Bank

, N .A. , 298 F.3d 768, 773 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ Only

if [the e m

ploy e e ] is lia

b le for [the pla i ntiff’ s] loss would we
a dditiona lly

c onside r whe t

he r [the e m

ploy e r] wa s a lso lia

ble unde r the doc trine of
re sponde a t supe rior.” ).

“ Although le ave to a

m e nd should be

give n fre e ly , a

distric t c o urt m ay dism iss without le ave whe re a pla intiff’ s propose d am e n dm e nts would fai l to c ure the p le a ding de fic i e nc ie s a nd a m e ndm e nt would befutile .” C e rv a nte s v . C ountryw ideHome Loans, Inc
. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011). Ogde n ha s not ide ntifie d a

fa c tua l a lle gation tha

t c ould pla

usibly ge t he r R IC O c la im s ove r the proxim a te -c a

use hurdle . The re fore , dism i ssa l with pre judic e wa s wa

rrante d
. AFFIRM E D
.

4