Mani Subramanian v. Crystal Decisions, Inc. , 492 F. App'x 824 ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
MANI SUBRAMANIAN, an individual, No. 10-15032
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:03-cv-04578-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CRYSTAL DECISIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2012 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Mani Subramanian appeals pro se the district court judgment granting
appellees’ motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to amend or alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), United Nat. Ins. Co. v.
Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly afforded comity to the judgment of the English
court because Subramanian failed to establish that the procedures afforded him by
the English court were deficient or fundamentally unfair. British Midland Airways
Ltd. v. Int’l Travel Inc., 497 F.2d 869, 870-71 (9th Cir. 1974). To permit
Subramanian to pursue litigation here in violation of negotiated forum-selection
clauses would frustrate a policy of United States courts. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 629-31 (1985); E & J Gallo
Winery v. Andina Licores, S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2006); Yahoo! Inc. v.
La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1213-14 (9th Cir.
2006).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Subramanian’s
motion to amend or alter the judgment because Subramanian presented no newly
discovered evidence or intervening change in the law and the decision was not
clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d at 780.
Subramanian’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
2 10-15032
Subramanian's motion to strike portions of the appellees’ answering brief is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-15032