Ravindra Patel v. Kishor Patel

MEMORANDUM

Ravindra K. Patel and Yogi Krupa, Inc. appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their first amended complaint alleging one claim, for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 , et seq. Having conducted a de novo review, we hold that the district court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989); Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877 , 879 (9th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we affirm.

The district court applied the substantiality doctrine in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1080, 1035 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 , 94 S.Ct. 1372 , 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974)). “The claim must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District…