Felipe N. Gomez, personally, and as Former non-attorney Custodian for Arthur Gomez v. Larry Weisenthal

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE N. GOMEZ, personally, and as
Former non-attorney Custodian for Arthur
Gomez,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LARRY WEISENTHAL; CONNIE
WEISENTHAL, as former Trustee and
personally; RICK FENELLI, Atty No.
68879; FENELLI AND ASSOCIATES
FENELLI LAW,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55833
D.C. No. 8:21-cv-02039-JLS-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Felipe N. Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
* 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). Gomez’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
SEP 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-55833
dismissing his action alleging claims under the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gomez’s claims against defendants
Larry Weisenthal and Connie Weisenthal because Gomez failed to allege facts
sufficient to establish constitutional standing for his state law claim or statutory
standing for his RICO claim. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61
(1992) (setting forth requirements for constitutional standing, including an “injury
in fact”); Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir.
2008) (explaining that to establish standing under § 1964(c), a civil RICO plaintiff
must establish that the “alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or
property”).
In his opening brief, Gomez fails to address the district court’s dismissal of
Gomez’s claims against defendants Rick Fenelli and Fenelli & Associates/Fenelli
Law and has therefore waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of
these claims. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-55833
waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gomez’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be
denied where amendment would be futile).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --