LANA WILLIAMS V. REX HUHA, No. 13-15343 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 4 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANA K. WILLIAMS, No. 13-15343 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01888-AWIGSA v. MEMORANDUM* REX LEE HUHA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 26, 2014** Before: THOMAS, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Lana K. Williams appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing her action alleging state law claims in connection with a car accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 * 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). F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. The district court properly determined there was no federal question jurisdiction because Williams action, which alleged state law claims for personal injury, legal malpractice, and insurance bad faith, does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331). The district court also properly determined that Williams failed to allege federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because both plaintiff and several defendants are citizens of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship). We reject Williams contention that the district court should not have dismissed her case for equitable reasons. Williams request filed on August 19, 2013 is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-15343

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.