Christopher Krohe v. Zandra Steinhardt
This text of Christopher Krohe v. Zandra Steinhardt (Christopher Krohe v. Zandra Steinhardt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER DAVID KROHE, No. 17-17259
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS v. 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS ZANDRA STEINHARDT, 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS
Defendant-Appellee. MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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). 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.
2 17-17259
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christopher Krohe v. Zandra Steinhardt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-krohe-v-zandra-steinhardt-ca9-2018.