
    Oksana S. BAIUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Key Brand Entertainment Inc., et al., Defendants.
    No. 14-1837-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 4, 2015.
    Raymond J. Markovich, West Hollywood, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Benjamin R. Joelson (Martin Domb, on the brief), Akerman LLP, New York, N.Y., Tal E. Dickstein (Michael P. Zweig, John A. Piskora, on the brief), Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Oksana S. Baiul, a Ukrainian former figure skater, appeals from the District Court’s May 6, 2014 judgment granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which raised various claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., and New York State common law concerning an alleged post-Soviet criminal enterprise to steal millions of dollars from Baiul between 1993 and 1997 in connection with her world-famous figure-skating career. ■ We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC, 750 F.3d 227, 232 (2d Cir.2014). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “We review a district court’s denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, unless the denial was based on futility, in which case we review that legal conclusion de novo.” City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752 F.3d 173, 188 (2d Cir.2014).

Upon de novo review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the District Court properly granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough May 6, 2014 opinion — namely, each of Baiul’s seventeen claims against the more than twenty defendants is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The District Court also properly denied Baiul’s motion for leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of the arguments raised by Baiul on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the District Court’s May 6, 2014 judgment.  