eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2016-06

John Nordblad v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C , 667 F. App'x 239 ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                              FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN R. NORDBLAD,                                 No. 14-55101
Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07542-DDP-
VBK
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST                      MEMORANDUM*
COMPANY, as Indenture Trustee for New
Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-2;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before:        BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
John R. Nordblad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging state law
*
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). Accordingly, Nordblad’s
request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,
    231 F.3d 1129
    , 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nordblad’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Nordblad failed to allege any federal claim and both
Nordblad and at least one defendant are citizens of California. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,
    582 F.3d 1083
    , 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for federal question
jurisdiction under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,
    385 F.3d 1177
    , 1181-83 (9th
Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). Because the district
court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without
prejudice. See Frigard v. United States,
    862 F.2d 201
    , 204 (9th Cir. 1988)
(dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion
to dismiss without first holding a hearing. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-15 (“The Court may
dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is
required by statute . . . .”); see also Delange v. Dutra Const. Co., Inc.,
    183 F.3d 916
    , 919 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review of a district court’s
interpretation and application of its local rules).
2                                   14-55101
We reject as meritless Nordblad’s contention that the district court judge was
biased.
AFFIRMED.
3                                   14-55101