Mai Ngoc Bui v. Ton Phi Nguyen
712 F. App'x 606
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bui appeals district court's dismissal with prejudice of her civil RICO claim from the SAC.
- Court held jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reversed to allow amendment.
- RICO requires a plaintiff to plead enterprise, pattern of racketeering, and predicate acts (mail or wire fraud).
- SAC alleged an enterprise and multiple predicate acts through a scheme to defraud Bui; district court found deficiencies.
- Court found three wire fraud acts sufficiently pled and considered pattern and enterprise adequacy, then remanded for amendment.
- Concurrence notes only remand for further amendment and does not endorse specific allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAC adequately pleads an enterprise | Bui pleads ongoing organization and a cohesive group | District court found no sufficient enterprise | Yes; SAC pleads an enterprise. |
| Whether SAC pleads at least two acts of racketeering with particularity | Three wire transfers qualify as predicate acts | Only one act may meet the requirement | Three wire fraud acts sufficiently pleaded. |
| Whether SAC shows a pattern of racketeering | Pattern shown via multiple related acts within ten years | Pattern not established by a single act | Remand for consideration of pattern with amendments. |
| Whether leave to amend was properly denied | Amendment could cure deficiencies, not futile | Discretionary denial warranted | District court abused its discretion; remand for further amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (establishes elements of civil RICO)
- Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) (defines enterprise and pattern concepts)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1981) (requires showing of ongoing organization and longevity)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (U.S. 2009) (addresses structure, purpose, and longevity of an enterprise)
- Sun Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1987) (rules on pleading fraud with particularity)
- United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2013) (explains wire fraud as a step in the fraud scheme)