Blumberg

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Blumberg appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on his section 1983 false arrest claim and the dismissal of his RICO claims for lack of standing. We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004). A district court’s order dismissing a RICO claim for failure to meet the standing requirement of showing injury to business or property, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), is also reviewed de novo. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, 300 F.3d 1083 , 1085 (9th Cir.2002).

As the parties moving for summary judgment, Appellees had the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact existed. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159 , 90 S.Ct. 1598 , 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). They did so by providing the declarations of the two investigating sheriffs deputies, who stated that the LAPD was not involved in the investigation, and by bringing forth credible evidence upon which they claim to have based their finding…