Henriks

MEMORANDUM **

Yana Henriks appeals the dismissal of her Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) complaint with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s determination whether a party has standing, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 546 (9th Cir.2004), and dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We *493 review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. United States v. Smith-Kline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Henriks’ claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a), for lack of standing because she failed to allege an injury resulting from Defendants’ use or investment of racketeering income. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 437 (9th Cir.1992).

Likewise, the district court did not err in dismissing Henriks’ claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (b), for lack of standing and failure to state a claim because she failed to allege an injury arising from Defendants’ acquisition or control of an interest in a RICO enterprise. See Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363…