Deborah Columbi v. Deutsche Bank Americas ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH ANN COLUMBI; DAVID No. 18-35677
GREGORY WILLENBORG,
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00778-RSL
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Deborah Ann Columbi and David Gregory Willenborg appeal pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law
claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. The district court construed the
action as a removal of the unlawful detention action brought by appellee Stewart
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
McCullum and remanded the case against McCullum to state court and dismissed
the claims against the other defendants for failure to state a claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lively v. Wild Oats
Mkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any grounds
supported by the record. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008).
We affirm.
Although we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’
initial filing was a notice of removal rather than a stand-alone complaint, we
conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action
and that the dismissal was proper. Plaintiffs did not allege diversity of citizenship
in their complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Nor did plaintiffs allege a federal cause
of action or state-law claims that raised a substantial question of federal law. See
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006)
(“A case aris[es] under federal law within the meaning of § 1331 . . . if a well-
pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or
that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
question of federal law.” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). We therefore affirm the dismissal of the entire action on the basis that
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-35677