Eric Bright v. Treehouse Group, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 23-15652
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC WARREN BRIGHT; DARLENA No. 23-15652 BRIGHT, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00839-JJT Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TREEHOUSE GROUP, LLC; BREIT- BRIGHTHAVEN MHC, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 16, 2024**

Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Eric Warren Bright and Darlena Bright appeal pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging claims related to their eviction.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for

* 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). lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lake v. Ohana Military Cmtys., LLC, 14 F.4th

993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Brights’ action because the Brights

failed to satisfy their burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff

v. City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (setting forth

basis for federal question jurisdiction); 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt

collector” for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act).

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 23-15652