Bernahl v. Eversheds Sutherland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 23-3506
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 7 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID BERNAHL, No. 23-3506 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:23-cv-00411-PCP v. MEMORANDUM* EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND; EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (INTERNATIONAL) LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales; EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (EUROPE) LIMITED; EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND BITANS, doing business as Eversheds Bitans Law Office; EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of Georgia; SERGENIAN ASHBY, LLP, a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of California; Mr. IAN SHELTON; JOSEPH R. ASHBY; SARAH E. PAUL; ASHBY LAW FIRM, PC, a professional corporation organized under the laws of California,

Defendants - Appellees.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California P. Casey Pitts, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: N.R. SMITH and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.***

David Bernahl appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As the parties are familiar with the

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and review the district court’s decision de novo. DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United

States, 926 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

Federal jurisdiction exists if the resolution of state-law claims “rises or falls

on the plaintiff’s ability to prove the violation of a federal duty.” Merrill Lynch,

Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. 374, 382–83 (2016). To meet

this standard, the federal issue must be “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually

disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without

disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568

U.S. 251, 258 (2013). “For an issue to be substantial, it is not enough that the

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

2 23-3506 federal issue be significant to the particular parties in the immediate suit . . . . The

substantiality inquiry . . . looks instead to the importance of the issue to the federal

system as a whole.” Hornish v. King County, 899 F.3d 680, 690 (9th Cir. 2018)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

The federal issue raised here—whether Defendants violated 28 U.S.C.

§ 1782 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45—is not substantial. It does not

implicate the federal government’s interest in finding a federal forum to “‘vindicate

its own administrative action’” like in Gunn. 568 U.S. at 260–61 (quoting Grable

& Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g Mfg, 545 U.S. 308, 315 (2005)). Nor

does it challenge the manner in which a federal agency or program functions, like

in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing.

545 at 314. While significant to these parties, Bernahl’s claims look backwards and

would not have a substantial impact on federal law. See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 261.

And because there is no substantial federal issue, we decline to consider the other

Gunn elements. Accordingly, federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3506