Richard Owens v. Natural Emphasis Ltd. ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD C. OWENS, DBA Newlight No. 21-55258
Company,
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10512-JFW-KS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
NATURAL EMPHASIS LTD.; BEAMER
COMPANY; SMOKE HOUSE
DISTRIBUTION INC.; DISCOUNT
SMOKING PRODUCTS INC.; MIQUEL Y
COSTAS AND MIQUEL SA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Richard C. Owens appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d
1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Bravo v.
City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Natural Emphasis
Ltd. because Owens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
he met the elements of any of his claims against this defendant. See Lindsey v. SLT
L.A., LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981claim and burden-shifting analysis); Oasis W. Realty v, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d
1115, 1121 (Cal. 2011) (elements of a breach of contract claim); Korea Supply Co.
v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937, 950 (Cal. 2003) (elements of an intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage claim); Smith v. BP Lubricants
USA Inc., 278 Cal. Rptr. 3d 587, 594 (Ct. App. 2021) (elements of an intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim); Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840, 852
(Ct. App. 2015) (elements of a fraud claim); Peterson v. Cellco P’ship, 80 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 316, 323 (Ct. App. 2008) (elements of an unjust enrichment claim);
Tuchscher Dev. Enters., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57,
73 (Ct. App. 2003) (elements of an intentional interference with contract claim).
The district court properly dismissed Owens’s action against the remaining
defendants because Owens failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that those
2 21-55258
defendants had such continuous and systematic contacts with California to
establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related contacts with
California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction. See Williams v.
Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1020-25 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirements for
general and specific personal jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Owens’s motion for
post-judgment relief because Owens failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the
opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Owens’s contention that he was
unfairly surprised by Natural Emphasis’s summary judgment motion or improperly
denied discovery.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-55258