CHRISTINE WONG V. ELLEN ANDERSON, No. 15-15807 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTINE WONG, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-15807 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05524-CRB MEMORANDUM* ELLEN ANDERSON, AKA The Harrison Team; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Christine Wong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her action seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement. We review de novo. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox * 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). Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Wong’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Wong did not present a federal question on the face of her amended complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint). For the same reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wong’s motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing her action. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wong’s action without leave to amend. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998) (leave to amend not required “where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal”); see also Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review). We reject as without merit Wong’s contention that the district court improperly dismissed the action without first holding a hearing. See Scholastic Entm’t, Inc., 336 F.3d at 985 (“While a party is entitled to notice and an 2 15-15807 opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)). AFFIRMED. 3 15-15807

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.