Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted Jan. 16, 1998.

Decided Aug. 3, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.

Before WIGGINS, NOONAN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM

Robert L. Allum ("Allum") sued BankAmerica Corporation, Nevada First Development Corporation, Valley Capital Corporation, Bank of America Nevada, Valley Bank of Nevada, Valley Mortgage Company, Sandra Washington (collectively, the "Banks"), Vargas & Bartlett, Albert Pagni, J. William Ebert, and Debra Robinson alleging a denial of his federal civil rights and state and federal RICO violations. The district court dismissed Allum's claims of "judicial errors" in the state courts for lack of jurisdiction, granted summary judgment against Allum on his remaining claims, and denied his discovery-related motions as moot. Allum appeals.

We affirm except for the grant of summary judgment on Allum's due process claims and the denial of his discovery motions, which we reverse and remand to the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Valley Mortgage Company dismissed Allum from his position as a loan underwriter. This has led to several lawsuits, of which this is the fourth. Here, Allum alleges that the Banks and Vargas & Bartlett violated his rights to procedural and substantive due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and conspired to violate, and violated, federal and Nevada state racketeering statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1962; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 207.400. The district court granted the Banks and Vargas & Bartlett and the individual attorneys summary judgment on all Allum's claims, but refused to consider any of Allum's "claims of judicial errors" in his state court suits against the Banks and Vargas & Bartlett and the individual attorneys, finding that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. The district court also dismissed with prejudice Allum's claims against Sandra Washington. The district court denied Allum's discovery-related motions as moot.

ANALYSIS

The district court was correct in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any of Allum's claims that required it "to review final judgments of [the Nevada] state court[s]...." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).

Allum claims that the Banks and Vargas & Bartlett violated his civil rights by engaging in a pattern of making bribes and illegal loans to induce members of the Nevada State judiciary to rule in favor of the Banks and Vargas & Bartlett's clients. "Private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge ... are ... acting under color of state law within the meaning of Section 1983." Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28-29, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Allum, and considering the lack of discovery in this case, the Court finds that notwithstanding the "presumption of honesty and integrity on the part of" members of the judiciary, Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732, 741 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted), Allum has shown that there is a question of material fact regarding whether he was denied due process of the law because those who judged his cases had such a "direct, personal, [and] substantial pecuniary interest in" his case that it would lead them "not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the" Banks and Vargas & Bartlett and Allum. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927). We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on this issue except as to the individual lawyers Pagni, Ebert and Robinson. Because Allum presents valid legal claims, his discovery-related motions are not moot and we remand them to the district court for consideration in the light of our holding that the district court has jurisdiction over Allum's due process claims and that a question of fact remains on the validity of his claims.

Bribery of state officials is a RICO predicate act. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(1)(A); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 207.360(17). However, Allum has not shown how the alleged bribery injured his business or property. See Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir.1992); see also Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-operative Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.1992) ( "[I]njuries to property are not actionable under RICO unless they result in tangible financial loss to the plaintiff."). Allum alleges that he has suffered emotional and physical distress, lost income and litigation expenses related to prosecuting and defending lawsuits, wrongful termination, libel, and loss of his professional license. Except for the loss of his professional license, none of these is an injury to "business or property" cognizable under federal or Nevada racketeering statutes. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Allum, Allum has not shown that he has been deprived of his professional license, much less that such deprivation was the result of racketeering activities on the part of the Banks and Vargas & Bartlett. Allum's federal and state racketeering claims were properly dismissed.

The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, except for the grant of summary judgment against Allum on his due process claims in favor of the Banks and Vargas and Bartlett and the dismissal of Allum's discovery motions as moot, which are REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court.