# Qin Zhang v. Google, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 2, 2015 · 609 F. App'x 459

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2814332

## Case

- **Full name:** QIN ZHANG, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 2, 2015
- **Citations:** 609 F. App'x 459
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Graber, Hawkins
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2814332

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming dismissal of federal claims sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker—Feldman doctrine

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIN ZHANG, an individual, No. 13-56362

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00024-PSG-PJW

v.
MEMORANDUM*
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015**

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Qin Zhang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action

alleging federal and state law violations arising out of prior state court proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154

(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s federal claims sua sponte for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the

claims were a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were

“inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing

Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609,

616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because the

relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s

decision was wrong and thus void”); Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp.,

Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court may dismiss sua sponte for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction without violating due process).

The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s state law claims due to the

absence of subject matter jurisdiction over any federal claims. See Scott v.

Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court has

no discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it

dismisses federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

Zhang’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, are denied

as unnecessary.

2 13-56362
The Google defendants’ request for sanctions, set forth in their April 11,

2014 answering brief, is denied.

Pursuant to the May 28, 2014 clerk order, the Clerk is directed to strike the

reply brief filed on March 27, 2014.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-56362

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2814332. Public record. Not legal advice.