Ming-Chu Chang v. Shu-Jen Tseng Chen

Ming-Chu Chang, Kang-Jye Chen, Ching-Chieh Chang and AC.I. Trading, Inc. (collectively “Chang”) sued Eugene Gabrych, Marian Gabrych and Eddie Lin (collectively “Prevailing Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1988). In a separate opinion filed April 4, 1996, we set forth the facts relating to Chang’s claims and affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. See Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir.1996). Prevailing Defendants have now filed motions seeking attorneys’ fees. We deny these motions.

*28 Prevailing Defendants cannot recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 1964(c) of the RICO statute because they were prevailing defendants in this action. That provision only permits prevailing plaintiffs to recover fees. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). See also Religious Technology Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 796 F.2d 1076 , 1082-83 (9th Cir.1986) (discussing limited remedies conferred on private plaintiffs), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1103 , 107 S.Ct. 1336 , 94 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987). Prevailing Defendants concede this point. Nevertheless, they contend that…