ERIC MALONE V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, No. 22-56201 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERIC MALONE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-56201 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00929-FMO-PVC v. MEMORANDUM* TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Eric Malone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Prather v. AT&T, * 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). Inc., 847 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Malone’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Malone failed to allege a federal question or meet the requirements for diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1332; Badgerow v. Walters, 142 S. Ct. 1310, 1314 (2022) (the Federal Arbitration Act does not create jurisdiction, and a federal court must have an “independent jurisdictional basis” to confirm an arbitral award); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (§ 1332 applies only when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010) (“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 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). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-56201

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.