KROHE v. STEINHARDT (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher David Krohe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a contract dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Krohe’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Krohe failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (conferring jurisdiction on district courts where the plaintiff alleges that the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction).

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

AFFIRMED.