Page:Yegiazaryan v. Smagin.pdf/5

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023)
1

Opinion of the Court

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


Nos. 22–381 and 22–383


ASHOT YEGIAZARYAN, AKA ASHOT EGIAZARYAN, PETITIONER
22–381v.22–381
VITALY IVANOVICH SMAGIN, ET AL.

CMB MONACO, FKA COMPAGNIE MONEGASQUE DE BANQUE, PETITIONER
22–383v.22–383
VITALY IVANOVICH SMAGIN, ET AL.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 22, 2023]

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Vitaly Smagin holds a multimillion dollar California judgment against petitioner Ashot Yegiazaryan, who lives in California. Smagin, who resides in Russia, filed suit in the Central District of California alleging that Yegiazaryan, with the assistance of petitioner CMB Monaco (formerly Compagnie Monégasque de Banque), engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, predominantly in and targeted at California, to prevent him from collecting on his California judgment, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. §§1961–1968. The District Court dismissed the complaint after concluding that Smagin had failed to allege a “domestic injury,” as required by RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European