DARIA v. SAPIENT INC LLC DE 2273938 WA LLC LVL LLC (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Haley Daria appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging claims arising out of settlement agreements she signed with defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Daria’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Daria failed to allege facts sufficient to show that her claims arose under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A case ‘arises under’ federal law within the meaning of § 1331 ․ if a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. 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).

Daria’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 37, 38) are denied. Daria’s motion to recuse the Honorable Mary M. Schroeder (Docket Entry No. 66) is denied. Daria’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 68) is denied.

AFFIRMED.