STEVEN SEPLOWIN V. ZILLOW, INC., No. 15-35961 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN SEPLOWIN, Individually and as an Assignee of American Realty LLC dba American Realty Pros, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35961 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00808-RSL Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. ZILLOW, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Steven Seplowin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with Zillow, Inc.’s discontinuation of an online real estate sale and rental service. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Seplowin’s action because Seplowin failed to allege any causes of action personal to him. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” (citation omitted)). We do not consider Seplowin’s argument raised for the first time on appeal that Seplowin, rather than American Realty LLC, contracted with Zillow, Inc. See Raiche v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 868 (9th Cir. 2007) (court generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). We lack jurisdiction to review the order of the Northern District of Illinois transferring this action to the Western District of Washington. See Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e may not review a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 by a district court outside of our circuit to a district court within our circuit.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-35961

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.