Court Opinion

ID: 9408527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 22:02:16.377487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.424391
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 12 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EZEKIAL FLATTEN; WILLIAM KNIGHT; No. 22-15741
CHRIS GURR; ANN MARIE BORGES,
                                   D.C. No. 3:21-cv-07031-SI
            Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

BRUCE SMITH; STEVE WHITE,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                      Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 10, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiffs Ezekial Flatten, William Knight, Chris Gurr, and Ann Marie

Borges (together, Plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their

claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968, against Defendants Bruce Smith and Steve White (together,

Defendants) without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Ariz.

Alliance for Cmty. Health Ctrs. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 47

F.4th 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2022). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s

denial of leave to amend. Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th

Cir. 2018). We affirm.

      1. In Shulman v. Kaplan, we held that plaintiffs whose claims arise from

“harms to their cannabis business[es] and related property” lack statutory standing

to sue under RICO because cannabis is illegal under federal law. 58 F.4th 404,

407, 411–12 (9th Cir. 2023). This case cannot be meaningfully differentiated from

Shulman. Here, Plaintiffs’ RICO claims all arise from Defendants’ seizure of their

marijuana.1 Accordingly, Shulman requires dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for lack

of statutory standing. Id.

      2. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs

leave to amend their complaint. Because Plaintiffs’ claims all arise from “harms to

their cannabis business[es] and related property,” id. at 407, and because Plaintiffs

1
  Although Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants seized other property from them,
their First Amended Complaint did not allege—and Plaintiffs do not argue—that
these seizures constitute a predicate RICO offense or otherwise give rise to a RICO
claim.

                                          2
have not suggested that they could amend their complaint to allege different harms,

any amendment would be futile. See Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d

1046, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2018).

      AFFIRMED.2

2
 Smith’s motion for judicial notice is denied as moot because the document he
seeks to be noticed is not relevant to this decision. See Corral v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 777 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017).

                                           3