Lana Williams v. Rex Huha ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 4 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LANA K. WILLIAMS,                                No. 13-15343
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01888-AWI-
    GSA
    v.
    REX LEE HUHA; et al.,                            MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 26, 2014**
    Before:        THOMAS, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Lana K. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing her action alleging state law claims in connection with a car accident.
    We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741
    *
    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).
    F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
    The district court properly determined there was no federal question
    jurisdiction because Williams’ action, which alleged state law claims for personal
    injury, legal malpractice, and insurance bad faith, does not arise “under the
    Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1331
    ; see also
    Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 
    582 F.3d 1083
    , 1086-87
    (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1331
    ).
    The district court also properly determined that Williams failed to allege
    federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because both plaintiff and
    several defendants are citizens of California. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    (a)(1); Kuntz v.
    Lamar Corp., 
    385 F.3d 1177
    , 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1332 requires complete
    diversity of citizenship).
    We reject Williams’ contention that the district court should not have
    dismissed her case for equitable reasons.
    Williams’ request filed on August 19, 2013 is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   13-15343
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-15343

Judges: Thomas, Owens, Friedland

Filed Date: 9/4/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024