Geraldine Trice v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
672 F. App'x 679
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Geraldine Trice (pro se) sued multiple defendants arising from foreclosure proceedings, asserting state and federal claims including fraudulent misrepresentation, civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and RICO violations.
- Defendants included individual attorneys (Larsen, Weber), their firm Smith Larsen & Wixom (Attorney Defendants), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and California Reconveyance Company, among others.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend as futile.
- The district court also applied issue preclusion to bar RICO claims against JPMorgan Chase and California Reconveyance Company based on prior state-court judgments resolving the same issues against Trice.
- Trice appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent misrepresentation (Nevada law) | Trice alleged defendants made false representations during foreclosure | Defendants denied making actionable false representations; complaint lacked specific factual allegations | Dismissed: Trice failed to plead false representations with sufficient facts to state a claim |
| Civil-rights claims under §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 | Trice claimed federal civil-rights violations arising from foreclosure conduct | Defendants argued they were not acting under color of state law and thus §§ 1983/1985/1986 do not apply | Dismissed: Trice did not show defendants acted under color of state law; claims fail |
| RICO claim (against Attorney Defendants) | Trice alleged a RICO enterprise based on foreclosure-related conduct | Defendants argued complaint lacked plausible factual allegations showing predicates and enterprise | Dismissed: Complaint did not plausibly state a RICO claim under Iqbal/Twombly standards |
| RICO claim (against JPMorgan & CRC) — issue preclusion | Trice asserted RICO theory against these defendants | Defendants invoked issue preclusion based on prior adverse state-court rulings on the same issues | Dismissed: RICO claim precluded because the controlling issues were actually litigated and decided against Trice previously |
| Leave to amend | Trice implicitly sought to proceed despite defects | Trice argued for ability to amend; court considered futility | Denied: District court did not abuse discretion in denying leave because amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 825 P.2d 588 (Nev. 1992) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation under Nevada law)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (explaining the scope of state-action/"color of state law" requirement for § 1983)
- Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529 (9th Cir. 1992) (elements of a § 1985(3) claim)
- Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir. 1985) (no § 1986 cause of action absent valid § 1985 claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2010) (RICO pleading elements and standards)
- LaForge v. State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 997 P.2d 130 (Nev. 2000) (doctrine of issue preclusion where issue actually litigated and determined)
- Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1988) (standard for dismissal without leave to amend when amendment would be futile)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts will not consider issues not raised in the opening brief)