Chang v. Chen

Good Law
95 F.3d 27·96 Daily Journal DAR 10915·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 23321·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6696
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 199694-55583California1,184 words

Opinion

Opinion

95 F.3d 27 RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9114 , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6696 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10 ,915 Ming-Chu CHANG; Kang-Jye Chen; Ching-Chieh Chang; A.C.I. Trading Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Fu-Nan Chen, aka, George Chen, Plaintiff, v. Shu-Jen Tseng CHEN, Defendant, and Eugene Gabrych; Marian Gabrych; Eddie Lin, aka, Eddy C. Lin, aka, Chi-Chang Lin, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-55583. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 6, 1996. Before: POOLE, BOOCHEVER and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 Ming-Chu Chang, Kang-Jye Chen, Ching-Chieh Chang and A.C.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. 2 Prevailing Defendants…

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.