Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0347-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary WICKENKAMP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew STROTMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35724.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 3, 2014.
    Mary Wickenkamp, Victoria, TX, pro se.
    
      Paul G. Dodds, David J. Sweeney, Esquire, Brownstein Rask Sweeney Kerr Grim Desylvia & Hay, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mary Wickenkamp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action alleging illegal wiretapping, slander, and other federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wickenkamp’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction because Wickenkamp failed to establish that Strotman, a Nebraska resident, and Cline Williams, a Nebraska partnership, had the required minimum contacts with Oregon such that the maintenance of her suit there would not offend due process. See Or. R. Civ. P. 4 L; Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Machinery Co., 913. F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.1990) (per cu-riam) (Oregon’s long-arm statute allows for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements); see also Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121-24, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (discussing “minimum contacts” necessary to create personal jurisdiction).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wickenkamp’s motion for jurisdictional discovery where the facts pertinent to the question of jurisdiction were not controverted. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court’s refusal to permit jurisdictional discovery “will not be reversed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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