Jack Finnegan v. Citi
703 F. App'x 625
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jack R. Finnegan sued Citibank over its handling of two retirement accounts, asserting federal and California law claims (including § 1983, RICO, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty/contract, fraud, and civil conspiracy).
- The case was removed to federal court; Finnegan moved to remand to state court.
- Citibank moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for Citibank and denied remand.
- Finnegan appealed pro se, challenging the summary judgment, denial of remand, and raising additional procedural and jurisdictional arguments.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, rejecting Finnegan’s claims and procedural challenges and denying his requests for costs and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Citibank acted under color of state law for § 1983 | Citibank’s conduct was state action supporting a § 1983 claim | Citibank was a private actor and not subject to § 1983 | No — Finnegan failed to raise a triable issue that Citibank was a state actor; summary judgment for Citibank |
| Whether plaintiff proved actual damages for his assortment of claims (RICO, conversion, breach, fraud, conspiracy) | Citibank’s handling caused recoverable damages | Plaintiff failed to present competent evidence of actual harm | No — summary judgment affirmed for lack of proof of damages |
| Whether the case should be remanded to state court | Remand was appropriate | Federal courts had subject-matter jurisdiction under federal-question jurisdiction; removal proper | No — district court properly denied remand; federal jurisdiction existed |
| Whether unpled theories or procedural complaints (e.g., § 1985, judicial bias, lack of personal jurisdiction, briefing rule violations) are viable on appeal | Raised various new claims and procedural objections on appeal | Claims not pled are waived; procedural objections lacked merit | Rejected — § 1985 claim waived (not pleaded); other procedural complaints meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988) (removal and federal-question jurisdiction principles)
- Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (criteria for evaluating state action)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (civil RICO requires actual injury)
- Lee v. Hanley, 354 P.3d 334 (Cal. 2015) (elements and damages for conversion)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115 (Cal. 2011) (elements of breach of fiduciary duty and contract damages)
- Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 938 P.2d 903 (Cal. 1997) (elements of fraud)
- Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 869 P.2d 454 (Cal. 1994) (civil conspiracy elements)
- Weinberg v. Whatcom County, 241 F.3d 746 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment for failure to prove damages)
- Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims not pleaded in the complaint are waived)