eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-09

Leeann Atkins v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEEANN A. ATKINS,                               No. 18-56622
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 8:18-cv-01310-DOC-ADS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Leeann A. Atkins appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
her action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
*
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).
Naffe v. Frey,
    789 F.3d 1030
    , 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Atkins’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Atkins failed to allege a federal question or complete
diversity of citizenship in her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Rivet v.
Regions Bank of La.,
    522 U.S. 470
    , 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under
§ 1331, a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Caterpillar
Inc. v. Lewis,
    519 U.S. 61
    , 68 (1996) (§ 1332 applies only when “the citizenship of
each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Atkins’s request for
an extension of time to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss and to file an
amended complaint where Atkins filed the request three days before the hearing on
the motions to dismiss. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend);
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,
    624 F.3d 1253
    , 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard
of review for a denial of an extension of time); S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch,
    307 F.3d 794
    , 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “district courts have inherent power
to control their dockets” and this court “will reverse a district court’s litigation
management decisions only if it abused its discretion” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
2                                     18-56622
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                  18-56622