Arnold Wald v. Ronald Abaro et al

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING RICO CAUSE OF ACTION AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE REMAINDER OF THE COMPLAINT by Judge Manuel L. Real, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pj)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

ARNOLD WALD,

14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17

RONALD ABARO; CANOGA PARK
DENTAL; DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE,

18
19
20

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-7922-R
ORDER DISMISSING RICO CAUSE OF
ACTION AND DECLINING TO
EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE
REMAINDER OF THE COMPLAINT

Arnold Wald (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against his dentist and the

21

related dental group (“Defendants”) containing a cause of action under the Racketeering

22

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as well as several state law causes of action.

23

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), which

24

was filed on November 15, 2013. Defendants also filed a motion to strike portions of the

25

Complaint (“Motion to Strike”) on November 15, 2013. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion

26

to Dismiss on December 4, 2013, and Defendants filed a reply on December 23, 2013. Finding

27

these two motions appropriate for resolution on the papers, the Court took the matters under

28

submission on December 23, 2013.

1

The elements of a civil RICO claim are: “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a

2

pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as predicate acts) (5) causing injury to the plaintiff’s

3

business or property.” Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996). “Racketeering

4

activity is defined as acts or threats involving a variety of crimes, such as murder, kidnapping,

5

gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, or extortion.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 939

6

(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)).

7

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants overcharged him for dental work and then attempted to

8

collect the bill. This alleged conduct does not constitute “racketeering activity” as that term is

9

defined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Because the Complaint does not contain allegations

10

constituting racketeering activity, the RICO cause of action is dismissed. Dismissal is with

11

prejudice because any amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512

12

F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).

13

The RICO cause of action was the sole basis of federal jurisdiction in the Complaint. The

14

remaining causes of action are based on state law and the parties are not diverse. “[I]n the usual

15

case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be

16

considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and

17

comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”

18

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). After consideration of these

19

factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law

20

causes of action in the Complaint. In light of this, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is moot.

21
22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed.
Dated: January 16, 2014.

23
24
25
26
27
28

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2