Jose Valadez v. Ruben Aguallo

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 12 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE VALADEZ; BABITA VALADEZ, No. 10-15058 Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-03100-JW v. MEMORANDUM * RUBEN AGUALLO; PAUL GREGORIO, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Ware, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 15, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Ruben Aguallo and Paul Gregorio appeal the district court’s judgment, after jury trial, in favor of plaintiffs Jose and Babita Valadez in their action alleging claims under RICO, and for extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The evidence established that appellees were engaged in interstate commerce through their rental car upholstery repair and interior cleaning business; their conduct need not have more than a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. See United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 1996). The fraud verdict was not inconsistent with the verdicts on the other counts because the fraud claim had different elements. The jury’s award of nominal damages on the RICO claim supported the award of the attorney’s fees, which are mandatory when a violation of RICO is established. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). AFFIRMED. 2