Paul Fletcher v. Dljpc

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL FLETCHER; CAROLE WOCKNER, No. 19-55604
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08671-SVW-SK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DONALD L. JOHNSON, PC; JULIE
BOYNTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Paul Fletcher and Carole Wockner appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their diversity action arising out of defendants’ legal
representation of them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v.
*
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).
AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs
failed to allege facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the district court
had personal jurisdiction over these defendants. See id. at 1074-80 (discussing
requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); Sher v. Johnson, 911
F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Out-of-state legal representation does not
establish purposeful availment . . . where the law firm is solicited in its home state
and takes no affirmative action to promote business within the forum state.”).
Because plaintiffs failed to raise any argument below regarding venue, they
have waived any challenge regarding the issue. See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United
Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536, 546 n.15 (9th Cir. 1991) (“It is well established that an
appellate court will not reverse a district court on the basis of a theory that was not
raised below.”).
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied. Plaintiffs’
motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55604