LAM v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC AKA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Lina Lam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action arising from an automobile accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal based on improper venue); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lam’s claims against Martin and Multiple Concrete, Inc. because Lam failed to establish that these defendants reside in the Central District of California or that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [her] claim[s]” occurred there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought).

The district court properly dismissed Lam’s claims against LM General Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Liberty Mutual, Inc.) because Lam failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (2011) (setting forth elements of a breach of contract claim); Jonathan Neil & Assocs., Inc. v. Jones, 33 Cal.4th 917, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 849, 94 P.3d 1055, 1068 (2004) (setting forth elements of a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lam’s action without granting Lam leave to amend. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Martin and Multiple Concrete, Inc.’s request for sanctions, set forth in their answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.