CHRISTOPHER KROHE V. ZANDRA STEINHARDT, No. 17-17259 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER DAVID KROHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZANDRA STEINHARDT, Defendant-Appellee. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-17259 D.C. Nos. 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Christopher David Krohe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a contract dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). 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). affirm. The district court properly dismissed Krohe’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Krohe failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (conferring jurisdiction on district courts where the plaintiff alleges that the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction). We do not consider 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 17-17259

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.