Horst Schmidt v. Bank of America-Nevada, an Interstate Banking Corporation Doing Business in Nevada Does I-X and Roe Corporations I-X

103 F.3d 140 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,715 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Horst SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA-NEVADA, an Interstate Banking Corporation doing business in Nevada; Does I-X; and Roe Corporations I-X, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-17082. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 23, 1996. * Decided Dec. 10, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, NOONAN, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Horst Schmidt appeals pro se the dismissal of his action under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ; Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1972 (1)(e); and RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 , against the Bank of America-Nevada ("Bank"), which refused to lend Schmidt money after the Bank learned that Schmidt planned to file for bankruptcy. 1 A. Jurisdiction 3 We have an obligation to sua sponte consider whether we have jurisdiction over the appeal, although neither party raises a jurisdictional issue. See Bender v. Williamsport…