UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VITALY IVANOVICH SMAGIN, No. 21-55537 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:20-cv-11236- RGK-PLA ASHOT YEGIAZARYAN, AKA Ashot Egiazaryan, an individual; COMPAGNIE MONÉGASQUE DE OPINION BANQUE, AKA CMB Bank; NATALIA DOZORTSEVA, an individual; ARTEM EGIAZARYAN, an individual; VITALY GOGOKHIA, an individual; MURIELLE JOUNIAUX, an individual; RATNIKOV EVGENY NIKOLAEVICH, an individual; PRESTIGE TRUST COMPANY, LTD.; H. EDWARD RYALS, an individual; ALEXIS GASTON THIELEN, an individual; STEPHAN YEGIAZARYAN, AKA Stephan Egiazarian, an individual; SUREN YEGIAZARYAN, AKA Suren Egiazaryian, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding 2 SMAGIN V. YEGIAZARYAN

Argued and Submitted April 6, 2022 Pasadena, California

Filed June 10, 2022

Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Stephen M. McNamee, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Graber

SUMMARY **

RICO

The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal, for lack of statutory standing, of a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Vitaly Smagin, a Russian citizen who resides in Russia, filed a civil RICO suit against Ashot Yegiazaryan, a Russian citizen who resides in California, and eleven other defendants. After securing a foreign arbitration award against Ashot, Smagin obtained a judgment from a United States district court confirming the award and giving Smagin the rights to execute on that judgment in California and to pursue discovery. Smagin alleged that defendants engaged

* The Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SMAGIN V. YEGIAZARYAN 3 in illegal activity, in violation of RICO, to thwart the execution of that California judgment.

Consistent with the Second and Third Circuits, but disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit’s residency-based test for domestic injuries involving intangible property, the panel held that the alleged injuries to a judgment obtained by Smagin from a United States district court in California were domestic injuries to property such that Smagin had statutory standing under RICO. The panel concluded that, for purposes of standing under RICO, the California judgment existed as property in California because the rights that it provided to Smagin existed only in California. In addition, much of the conduct underlying the alleged injury occurred in, or was targeted at, California.

COUNSEL Alexander D. Burch (argued), Baker & McKenzie LLP, Houston, Texas; Barry J. Thompson, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Los Angeles, California; Nicholas O. Kennedy, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Dallas, Texas; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Michael C. Tu (argued) and Peter J. Brody, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, California, for Defendant-Appellee Compagnie Monégasque de Banque. David J. Stein (argued), Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; Asa Markel, Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd., Torrance, California; for Defendant-Appellee Alexis Gaston Thielen. Ashot Yegiazaryan (argued), Beverly Hills, California, pro se Defendant-Appellee. 4 SMAGIN V. YEGIAZARYAN

OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Vitaly