Opinion

Christian Joubert v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp.

  • 466 F. App'x 588
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Jan 12, 2012
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Goodwin, Wallace, McKeown
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 20.0%

The opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 12 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTIAN JOUBERT, Personal No. 10-35713

Representative of the Maria Joubert Estate

Acting pro se and individually, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00887-RSM

Plaintiff - Appellant,

MEMORANDUM *

v.

BROWN WILLIAMSON TOBACCO

CORP.; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011 **

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Christian Joubert appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

action alleging state law claims arising from the death of his mother. We have

*

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).

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

subject matter jurisdiction. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.

2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal without

leave to amend. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Joubert’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Joubert alleged neither a federal question nor complete

diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333-1332.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Joubert’s action

without leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See

Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008)

(“[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs

from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.”)

Joubert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 10-35713

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.