SIM HOFFMAN, M.D., an individual; v. Zenith Insurance Company, a California corporation;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIM HOFFMAN, M.D., an individual; et
al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, a
California corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55389
D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00355-DOC-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 5, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Sim Hoffman, M.D.; Advanced Professional Imaging Medical
Group; Better Sleeping Medical Center, Inc.; Advanced Medical Support, Inc.;
FILED
NOV 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Pacific Medical Supplies and Services, Inc.; California Psychological Care, Inc.;
Access Plus, Inc.; Pacific Neuro Diagnostic Medical Group, Inc.; Pacific Care
Medical Group, Inc.; and Diagnostic Imaging Network Medical Group, Inc.,
appeal the district court’s orders (1) granting summary judgment to Defendants
Zenith Insurance Company and ZNAT Insurance Company on Plaintiffs’ claims
under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), and (2) denying Plaintiffs’ motions for post-judgment
relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). We affirm.
1. A RICO plaintiff must establish standing to sue under RICO’s private
right of action, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), by demonstrating "that the defendants’ alleged
misconduct proximately caused [the plaintiffs’] injury." Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
437 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although
proximate cause, not reliance, is the essential element of statutory standing under
RICO, proving reliance is necessary where it is integral to Plaintiffs’ theory of
causation. Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 659 (2008).
Plaintiffs seek to satisfy the statute’s proximate cause requirement through a
theory of detrimental reliance: that Defendants lulled them into believing that
disputed insurance claims would be negotiated in good faith. Reviewing de novo,
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2009), we hold that the district court correctly granted summary judgment.
Plaintiffs presented no admissible evidence that Defendants had put them on a "no
pay" list; rather the evidence shows only an assumption by Plaintiffs that
Defendants did not mean what they said, not any reliance on "lulling" statements
made by Defendants.
2. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of Plaintiffs’ post-judgment
motions. Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 59(e));
United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b)).
The alleged statements about a "no pay" list did not warrant reconsideration
of the summary judgment ruling because the evidence was not discovered after the
judgment, could have been discovered earlier through due diligence, and would not
create a factual dispute as to whether Defendants proximately caused harm to
Plaintiffs. Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor
did the allegations of attorney misconduct require reconsideration. At most, the
first Papa declaration suggests that Peplowski may have lied at her deposition, not
that she was improperly urged to do so by defense counsel. And even if a conflict
of interest rendered Kass’ participation in the January deposition unethical, that
fact would not give Plaintiffs standing to bring this action.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --