
    Christine Elizabeth REULE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.O. SEIFFERT COMPANY, doing business as EDS Everett Downtown Storage; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-36154.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    Christine Elizabeth Reule, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Eileen I. McKillop, Esquire, Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Reule’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christine Elizabeth Reule appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and state law in connection with the sale of her property stored in a rental storage unit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reule’s RICO claim because she failed to allege facts to support the existence of a criminal enterprise, and failed to sufficiently plead two or more predicate criminal acts constituting “a pattern ... of racketeering activity.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 & n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985).

The district court properly dismissed Reule’s state law claims for lack of diversity jurisdiction because she failed to allege facts establishing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir.1986) (dismissal is appropriate when it appears “to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Gaglidari v. Denny’s Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 426, 815 P.2d 1362, 1374 (1991) (damages for emotional distress are generally not recoverable for breach of contract claims under Washington law).

Reule’s remaining contentions, including those regarding additional state law claims, appointment of counsel, and discovery, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     