Joseph Rae v. Union Bank, a Banking Corporation

Good Law
725 F.2d 478·74 A.L.R. Fed. 571·1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25766
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 6, 198483-2189California1,142 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

After a series of loans, extensions, and modifications, Union Bank foreclosed on certain property of the appellants, Joseph Rae, et al., (Rae). Rae brought suit in federal court against Union Bank and certain of its employees, alleging various contract and tort theories. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Rae amended to add federal question claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Bank Holding Company Act. The district court found that the federal claims were wholly insubstantial and frivolous and dismissed them without leave to amend. The court also dismissed the remaining pendent state claims. We affirm.

A ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a ruling on a question of law, freely reviewable by the court of appeals. Alonzo v. ACF Property Management, Inc., 643 F.2d 578, 579 (9th Cir. 1981). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.