Brandi Smith v. Gail Chase

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 23-15208
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDI SHAKIA SMITH, No. 23-15208

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00459-GMS

v. MEMORANDUM* GAIL CHASE, Chief Operating Officer; NICOLE BOSCO, Human Resources Director; LINDA WILEY, Executive Director; KIMBERLY ROMERO, Human Resources Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Brandi Shakia Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

for lack of personal jurisdiction her action alleging employment discrimination and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s action for lack of personal

jurisdiction because Smith did not allege facts sufficient to establish that

defendants Chase and Bosco had sufficient contacts with Arizona to provide the

court with either general or specific jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires

Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011) (“For an individual, the

paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile

. . . .”); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.

2004) (specific personal jurisdiction requires, among other things, that “the claim

must . . . arise[] out of or relate[] to the defendant’s forum-related activities”).

Smith’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15208