884 F2d 1395 Mercury Refueling Inc v. Farstar Air Inc
884 F.2d 1395
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
MERCURY REFUELING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FARSTAR AIR, INC.; Gaylord C. Greenfield; Tamarak
Resources, Inc.; Harmattan Cattle Co., et al., Defendants,
and
Flight Trails, Inc., dba, Air Resorts International;
William Cantrell; Timothy Greenfield, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-5946.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 7, 1989.
Decided Aug. 30, 1989.
Before FLETCHER, NELSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
The district court did not follow the mandate we issued 22 months ago; instead, it: (1) instructed plaintiff to amend its complaint without first explaining how the First Amended Complaint was deficient; and (2) later dismissed with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint without stating specific reasons for doing so, or explaining why further amendment would be futile. See Mercury Refueling, Inc. v. Farstar Air, Inc., Nos. 86-6329, 86-6695, at 3-4 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 1987). We need not instruct the district court to permit further amendment because we conclude that plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint adequately states a claim under RICO, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. (1982 & Supp. V 1987). It sufficiently alleges a pattern of racketeering activity, see Sun Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187, 192-94 (9th Cir.1987); identifies a RICO enterprise, see id. at 194-95; and pleads the underlying predicate acts with the requisite particularity, see id. at 195-96. We therefore reverse the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
Additionally, we reverse the district court's dismissal of defendants Timothy Greenfield and William Cantrell for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have made the requisite "prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts," Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir.1977); we therefore instruct the district court to permit discovery to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Id. at 1285 n. 1.
Plaintiff's request for rule 11 sanctions, defendants' request for costs and plaintiff's request that we reassign the case are denied.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3