Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Marsha and Sarah Westenberg against the dismissal of their claims against CNF Transportation, Inc., Marsha's former employer, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district court dismissed the claims, ruling that Sarah Westenberg lacked standing as a RICO plaintiff due to the derivative nature of her claims, which asserted only indirect harm. The court found that the alleged RICO violations, linked to Marsha's workers' compensation and sexual harassment litigation, did not meet the statutory definition of racketeering activity. Furthermore, the lawsuit was barred by res judicata because of prior settlements and state court decisions. The district court denied motions for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), citing no violation of due process. The appeal, confined to specific counts of the complaint, resulted in the affirmation of the dismissal. The disposition of this case is non-publishable and cannot be cited, as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. All pending motions were denied, and the court's decision was upheld, concluding the procedural journey of the case in the appellate court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Racketeering Activity under RICOsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the RICO claims related to Marsha's workers' compensation and sexual harassment litigation do not meet the definition of racketeering activity.
Reasoning: The RICO claims, associated with Marsha's workers' compensation and sexual harassment litigation, do not constitute racketeering activity as defined by RICO.
Denial of Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court properly denied motions for reconsideration as the Westenbergs failed to show adequate grounds, and due process was not violated.
Reasoning: The district court also properly denied motions for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), as the Westenbergs failed to show adequate grounds, and due process was not violated by the reassignment of the case to a different judge.
Non-publication and Citation of Court Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: This disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Res Judicata in Civil Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The lawsuit is barred due to the preclusive effect of prior settlements and state court decisions, demonstrating the application of res judicata.
Reasoning: Additionally, the lawsuit is barred by res judicata due to the preclusive effect of prior settlements and state court decisions.
RICO Plaintiff Standingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that Sarah Westenberg is not a proper RICO plaintiff because her claims are derivative and assert only indirect harm.
Reasoning: The court affirms the dismissal, ruling that Sarah is not a proper RICO plaintiff as her claims are derivative and assert only indirect harm.