Rune Kraft v. Gainey Ranch Community Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUNE KRAFT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GAINEY RANCH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION; KAREN EPSTEIN; JIM
FUNK; CHARLENE A. CRUZ; MAUREEN
MARTHA CONNOLLY; MARION
ELIZABETH MULCAHY; PAIGE
ELIZABETH MARKS; LAUREN VIE;
DOES, 1-10, Inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15653
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05697-JJT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Rune Kraft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15653
brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v.
Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kraft’s action because Kraft lacked
standing to bring his action under RICO. See Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds,
Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 2008) (“To have standing under § 1964(c), a civil
RICO plaintiff must show: (1) that his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his
business or property; and (2) that his harm was ‘by reason of’ the RICO violation,
which requires the plaintiff to establish proximate causation.”); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009) (conclusory allegations are not entitled to a
presumption of truth).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kraft’s post-
judgment motion for relief because Kraft failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting
forth standard of review and discussing factors for granting a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15653
We reject as meritless Kraft’s contentions that the district court should have
issued subpoenas, should have made factual findings, did not comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and erred in concluding defendants were entitled
to seek attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --