KAREN HAN V. YANGRAI CHO, No. 19-16073 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN C. HAN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16073 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00277-HG-KJM MEMORANDUM* YANGRAI CHO, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Karen C. Han appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging fraud and civil conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th * 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). Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Han’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction because Han failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that defendant Cho had continuous and systematic contacts with Hawaii to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient minimum contacts with Hawaii to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over Cho. See CollegeSource, Inc., 653 F.3d at 1074-76 (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Han’s motion for reconsideration because Han failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Han’s request for jurisdictional discovery because Han failed to demonstrate that the requested discovery would have yielded “jurisdictionally relevant facts.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 529 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that the denial of a request for jurisdictional discovery “based on little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts [is] not an abuse of discretion”). 2 19-16073 The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Han’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 3 19-16073
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.
