BRIAN MALNES V. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, No. 14-16296 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN EDWARD MALNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 14-16296 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-08211-MHB v. MEMORANDUM* BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, (BMW AG); et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 14, 2016*** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Brian Edward Malnes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Malnes consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Malnes’ request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied. his action alleging violations of federal and state law related to his car battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record. Lake Wash. Sch. Dist. No. 414 v. Office of Superintendent of Pub. Instruction, 634 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. Dismissal of Malnes’ action was proper because venue in the District of Arizona was improper. Malnes has not established that all defendants are residents of Arizona or that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [his] claim[s]” occurred in Arizona. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) & (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 14-16296

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.