Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0503-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert J. JAFFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David P. YAFFE, The Honorable, in his Judicial and individual capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-55364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 23, 2007 .
    Filed July 27, 2007.
    Robert J. Jaffe, Woodland Hills, CA, pro se.
    D.L. Helfat, DAG, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, we grant appellees’ opposed motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.