UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 96-30799
_________________
KENNETH J. GUILBEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GRAND CASINOS, INC.; GRAND CASINOS OF
LOUISIANA, INC.-COUSHATTA; GRAND CASINOS OF
LOUISIANA, INC.-TUNICA-BILOXI; and KEVIN KEAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(95-CV-1167)
April 7, 1997
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Kenneth J. Guilbeaux sued Grand Casinos, Inc., Grand
Casinos of Louisiana, Inc.-Coushatta, Grand Casinos of Louisiana,
Inc.-Tunica-Biloxi, and Kevin Kean (“the defendants”) alleging
violation of (1) certain provisions of the Sherman and Clayton
Acts, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 15, and 22; (2) the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.;
and (3) Louisiana law regarding unfair competition and trade
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
practices as well as defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss
the federal claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and also requested
that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the pendent state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The
district court granted the motions.
On appeal, Guilbeaux contends that the district court erred in
dismissing his antitrust and RICO claims. In reviewing a district
court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),
we accept all factual allegations in the pleadings as true and
examine whether the allegations state a claim sufficient to avoid
dismissal. Kansa Reins. Co. v. Congressional Mortgage Corp., 20
F.3d 1362, 1366 (5th Cir. 1994). We may uphold a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal only if it appears that, under any set of facts that
could be proven consistent with the allegations in the pleadings,
no relief could be granted. Id. While we must accept all factual
allegations as true, we need not resolve unclear questions of law
in favor of the plaintiff. Grisham v. United States, 103 F.3d 24,
25 (5th Cir. 1997).
For the reasons given by the district court, we AFFIRM the
judgment below.
-2-