Grizzard

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of *787 defendants. We affirm. Because Grizzard has not suffered injury to his business or property, he lacks standing to bring a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

Grizzard alleges that he suffered direct injury when defendants improperly siphoned funds from Suwaso and remitted them to Japan without giving him a share. In essence, Grizzard claims that defendants effectively denied him a dividend. Shareholders, however, typically lack standing where the harm they suffered was derivative to the injury suffered by the corporation. See Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411, 1419-21 (9th Cir.1995); Sparling v. Hoffman Construction Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir.1988). In this case, it was the corporate coffers, not Grizzard’s, that were drained by the alleged improper siphoning of funds. As such, Grizzard’s injury was purely derivative.

We have recognized two exceptions to the general rule that precludes shareholders from asserting standing under RICO. A shareholder asserting an injury derivative to that of a…