Shabnam Dastmalchian and Msb I v. DOJ ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SHABNAM DASTMALCHIAN; MSB                       No.    16-56239
    INVESTMENT, LLC,
    D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09072-PSG-JC
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 13, 2018**
    Before:      LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Shabnam Dastmalchian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing her action arising from alleged fraud in a federal criminal forfeiture
    proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
    *
    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). Dastmalchian’s request for
    oral argument, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.
    district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Yagman v. Garcetti, 
    852 F.3d 859
    , 863 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Dastmalchian’s action because
    Dastmalchian failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on
    its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted)).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
    because amendment would be futile. See 
    Yagman, 852 F.3d at 863
    , 867 (setting
    forth standard of review and noting that a “district court need not grant leave if it
    determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other
    facts” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    To the extent that Dastmalchian appealed on behalf of MSB Investment,
    LLC, the entity is unrepresented and not properly before the court. See United
    States v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 
    3 F.3d 1244
    , 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (sole
    shareholder may not represent a corporation in federal court); Johns v. County of
    San Diego, 
    114 F.3d 874
    , 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (a non-attorney “has no authority to
    appear as an attorney for others than [herself]” (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    16-56239
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-56239

Filed Date: 2/22/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021