Opinion
Nos. 08-35339, 08-35650.
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed June 14, 2010.
George E. Barton, Dayton, WA, pro se.
Steven Kent Gustafson, Gustafson Hogan PLLC, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00109-FVS.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In these related appeals, George E. Barton appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the exercise of specific jurisdiction over defendants would not be reasonable because the relevant factors weigh strongly against such a finding. See Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487-90 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant factors).
The district court also properly concluded that defendants were not subject to general jurisdiction in Washington because defendants did not engage in "the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts that approximate physical presence." Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Barton's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.