NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RAVINDRA K. PATEL; et al., No. 10-57060
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05818-GHK-
FMO
v.
KISHOR PATEL; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 7, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and MUELLER, District Judge.**
Ravindra K. Patel and Yogi Krupa, Inc. appeal the district court’s dismissal
with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their first amended
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Eastern California, sitting by designation.
complaint alleging one claim, for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. Having conducted a de novo
review, we hold that the district court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Kruso
v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989); Griggs v. Pace Am.
Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm.
The district court applied the substantiality doctrine in finding that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction. “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the question presented is too insubstantial to
consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985)
(citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim must be ‘so
insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise
completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the
jurisdiction of the District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the
federal issue on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of
Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)).
Appellants’ allegation that defendants-appellees Kishor and Gita Patel
engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by dealing in obscene matter is devoid
of merit under both 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B). We have not considered
appellants’ Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter filed on May 4, 2012
2
because it raises new arguments, which we consider waived for purposes of this
appeal. Confederated Tribes v. Bonneville Power Admin., 342 F.3d 924, 933 (9th
Cir. 2003); Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1263, 1269 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004).
This decision does not foreclose appellants from bringing their new theory in a
new case. Cook, 775 F.2d at 1035. Appellees’ request for judicial notice is denied
as moot. (Doc. No. 21.)
AFFIRMED.
3