NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUNE KRAFT, No. 16-56561
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00701-VBF-AS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC., a
Washington corporation; INLAND
CONCRETE ENTERPRISES, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN,
an employee stock ownership plan,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rune Kraft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)
*
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).
claim, among other claims, arising from a 2007 stock purchase transaction. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Kraft’s RICO claim was proper because the claim involves
issues that were previously litigated as part of the proceedings that resulted in
judgment being entered against Kraft on June 22, 2011. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
U.S. 880, 891 n.4 (2008) (“For judgments in diversity cases, federal law
incorporates the rules of preclusion applied by the State in which the rendering
court sits.” (citation omitted)); White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th
Cir. 2012) (explaining that California’s issue preclusion doctrine “precludes
relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings” and setting forth six
criteria to determine whether an issue is precluded (citation omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56561