DAVID KISSI V. BANK OF AMERICA, No. 12-57138 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID KISSI, No. 12-57138 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07540-JFWMRW v. BANK OF AMERICA, Countrywide; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2014** Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. David Kissi appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims in connection with a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court s finding that it * 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). lacked 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 determined that Kissi failed to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction because he alleged only state law claims in his complaint and failed to allege diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); see also 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, 118182 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). We treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice). Appellees motion for judicial notice, filed on February 14, 2014, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 12-57138

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.