Powers

MEMORANDUM **

The plaintiffs brought a series of RICO claims against the defendants, all of which focus on the alleged misconduct by the defendants and the defendants’ alleged retaliation against the plaintiffs for the plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights in speaking out against the defendants’ alleged wrongful acts. All were dismissed by the district court.

A plaintiff has standing to assert a claim under § 1964 only if he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the RICO violation. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 *431 U.S. 479, 495-96 , 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). Under Ninth Circuit law, “[a] showing of ‘injury’ requires proof of concrete financial loss.” Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir.1992). Neither intangible injuries to property nor personal injuries are compensable under RICO. Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-operative Assoc., 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc); Berg v. First State Ins. Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.1990). Injuries to political rights alone are a fortiori insufficient.

The plaintiffs allege in part a loss of salary and rental and business…