Opinion
No. 20-15558
01-28-2021
GONZALO R. RUBANG, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC R. BROOKS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Rubang's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Rubang failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his fourth amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331).
We reject as unsupported by the record Rubang's contention that the district court failed to consider his fifth amended complaint.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.