# Jarvis v. Regan

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 27, 1987 · 833 F.2d 149

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8955576

## Case

- **Full name:** Howard JARVIS, an individual the Conservative Caucus, Inc., a Virginia nonprofit corporation v. Donald T. REGAN, Secretary of the United States Treasury Legal Services Corporation, a District of Columbia corporation Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, a California nonprofit corporation "Jarvis II Task Force," an association Does 1-40, organizations and Does 41-50, individuals
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 27, 1987
- **Citations:** 833 F.2d 149
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Patel
- **Judges:** Boochever, Hug, Patel
- **Cited by:** 99 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8955576

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Plaintiff could not establish a pattern of racketeering by allegations that legal organizations committed three predicate acts of mail and wire fraud in obtaining a single federal grant to defray costs of opposing a ballet initiative
- finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss because "[d]iscovery is only appropriate where there are factual issues raised by a Rule 12(b) motion"
- noting 6 district court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery during pendency of motion to 7 dismiss when plaintiff’s claims did not raise factual issues that “required discovery for their 8 resolution”
- affirming stay of discovery without discussing whether court was convinced plaintiff could not state a claim before entering stay
- holding district court did not abuse its 14 discretion in denying discovery when the complaint did not raise factual issues requiring 15 discovery to resolve

## Opinion text

PATEL, District Judge,
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result reached in Judge Hug’s opinion. However, as to the RICO claim, I do not believe it is necessary to put appellant’s complaint through the consuming “pattern of racketeering activity” analysis under Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 , 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). Plaintiffs cannot state a RICO claim for one clear reason. They were not injured in their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).
Injury to business or property does not include personal damages, Drake v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 782 F.2d 638, 644 (6th Cir.1986), or political damages. RICO is intended to permit private actions solely for damages of a business or proprietary nature. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 741 F.2d 511, 515 (2d Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 473 U.S. 922 , 105 S.Ct. 3550 , 87 L.Ed.2d 673 (1985).
The injury allegations made here are strictly of a political and personal nature and, therefore, outside the purview of RICO. I would affirm for this reason alone.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8955576. Public record. Not legal advice.