RUBANG v. BROOKS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Gonzalo R. RUBANG, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric R. BROOKS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15558

Decided: January 28, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr., Pro Se Mark Wilson, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

MEMORANDUM **

Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Rubang's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Rubang failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his fourth amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331).

We reject as unsupported by the record Rubang's contention that the district court failed to consider his fifth amended complaint.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law