George Barton v. Gary Sewell ( 2010 )

FILED
JUN 14 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE E. BARTON, Nos. 08-35339
08-35650
Plaintiff - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00109-FVS
v.
GARY W. SEWELL and GARTON & MEMORANDUM *
ASSOCIATES, Realtors,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these related appeals, George E. Barton appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
lack of personal jurisdiction, Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the exercise of specific
jurisdiction over defendants would not be reasonable because the relevant factors
weigh strongly against such a finding. See Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries
AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487-90 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant factors).
The district court also properly concluded that defendants were not subject
to general jurisdiction in Washington because defendants did not engage in “the
kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts that approximate
physical presence.” Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain
Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Barton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-35650