Cesar Catibayan v. Sycip Gorres Velayo & Co. , 609 F. App'x 428 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR Y. CATIBAYAN, a U.S. citizen, No. 13-35989
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00273-HU
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SYCIP GORRES VELAYO & CO.,
(SGV), a Philippine Accounting Firm,
AKA SGV/Ernst & Young, (SGV/EY),
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Y. Catibayan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction over SyCip Gorres
Velayo & Co. (“SGV”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
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).
de novo, Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Catibayan’s action for lack of personal
jurisdiction because Catibayan failed to establish that SGV had sufficient contacts
with Oregon such that maintenance of the suit there would not offend due process.
See Or. R. Civ. P. 4(L); Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121-23 (2014) (specific
jurisdiction requires a defendant to have certain minimum contacts with the forum
state); Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223-24 (9th Cir.
2011) (general jurisdiction requires a defendant to have “continuous and
systematic general business contacts” with the forum state (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Machinery Co., 913 F.2d
758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (Oregon’s long-arm statute allows for
jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Catibayan’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
Catibayan’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35989