SHABNAM DASTMALCHIAN AND MSB I V. DOJ, No. 16-56239 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHABNAM DASTMALCHIAN; MSB INVESTMENT, LLC, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-56239 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09072-PSG-JC Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
