Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant challenged the district court's dismissal of her case against two corporations alleging violations under RICO and federal lending statutes. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the complaint failed to demonstrate the requisite pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. Additionally, the appellant's claim under the Truth in Lending Act was dismissed with prejudice due to insufficient legal grounding. The court also vacated a clerk's default entry against one defendant, who had appropriately responded with a timely motion to dismiss. In exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the court upheld its authority over state law claims associated with the case. The appellant's motion to recuse the presiding judge was denied, as it did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Any issues not raised at the trial level were deemed waived and not entertained on appeal. The court concluded that the appellant's remaining arguments lacked merit, resulting in the denial of all pending motions and the affirmation of the district court's judgment, with the note that this disposition is not designated for publication.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion to Recusesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's denial of the motion to recuse the presiding judge was upheld as it was not considered an abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: The denial of Hollis-Arrington’s motion to recuse the presiding judge was not an abuse of discretion.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the complaint did not establish the necessary pattern of racketeering activity required under RICO.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the dismissal, stating that Hollis-Arrington's second amended complaint did not establish a necessary pattern of racketeering involving multiple transactions.
Setting Aside Clerk's Entry of Defaultsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court set aside the clerk's entry of default against Fannie Mae as the company had timely responded with a motion to dismiss.
Reasoning: The court also set aside a clerk's entry of default against Fannie Mae, which had timely responded with a motion to dismiss.
Supplemental Jurisdiction over State Law Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims presented.
Reasoning: The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims was deemed appropriate.
Truth in Lending Act Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's claim under the Truth in Lending Act was dismissed with prejudice due to a failure to present a legal basis.
Reasoning: Additionally, her claim under the Truth in Lending Act was dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of legal basis.
Waiver of Issues Not Raised at Trialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Issues raised for the first time on appeal were not considered by the court.
Reasoning: Issues raised for the first time on appeal were not considered.