Court Opinion

ID: 2962414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:57:29.852654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:29.144702
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 16, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-2181                                       COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.,                                Plaintiff, Appellees,                                          v.                              CENTERPOINT BANK, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees,                                   ________________                                 REGINA M. KELLEHER,                           Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                        Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ___________________               Regina M. Kelleher on brief pro se.               __________________               Martha V. Gordon, Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau & Gordon on  brief               ________________  ______  ______  _______   ______          for appellee.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per   Curiam.      Plaintiff/appellant  Regina   M.                      ____________            Kelleher,  appeals,  pro  se,  the dismissal  of  her  second            amended civil complaint by the district court.  The complaint            alleges a  violation of the Racketeer  Influenced and Corrupt            Organizations  Act  (RICO),  18  U.S.C.    1961-1968,  and  a            pendent  state  law  claim  for  tortious  interference  with            business  relations.    The   district  court  dismissed  the            complaint  on the  grounds that  plaintiff lacks  standing to            assert a RICO claim.                      We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record            below  and affirm for  essentially the reasons  stated in the            district court's  order.  We  add that although  the district            court did not specifically address the pendent state claim in            its   order,   the   court's   blanket   dismissal  seemingly            encompasses all claims in the second amended complaint.   The            district  court appropriately  dismissed  the  pendent  claim            without  reaching the merits.  As the Supreme Court has held,            "when the  federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit            in its early  stages, and only  state-law claims remain,  the            federal court should decline  the exercise of jurisdiction by            dismissing  the  case  without prejudice."    Carnegie-Mellon                                                          _______________            Univ.  v. Cohill, 484 U.S.  343, 350 (1988);  see also United            _____     ______                              ________ ______            Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).              ____________    _____                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-