N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

LER OY ALB E R T LEW IS, Truste e , M arsha Ste rn Ne va da

Irre voc a ble Spe n dthrift Trust,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M AXIM ILIAN SANDOR , Truste e , Alpha B e t a Gam m a Trust; Truste e , Sunla

nd Fina nc ia l Se rvic e s, AKA Joa c him Ste ingrue bne r; DOES, 1-10 Inc lusive ; GUNTER

ZIELKE, AKA Ale x Ha

m lin, AKA M e rlin Silk, AKA Gunte r M . Zie lke , AKA Gunte r M aria

Zie l k e ; PR

APAPUN ZIELKE, AKA Pra

pa pun C h a ipra se rt, AKA Gigi Zie lke ; C ANDAC E HOW ELL,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-55100 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-08615-PSG-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
MAY4 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d M ay 3, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Le R oy Le w is, a s Truste e of the M arsha Ste rn Ne v a da

Irre voc a ble Spe ndthrift Trust, tim

e l y a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his quie t title
a c tion with pre

judic e for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not ha ve dive rsity

jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1332 be c a use Le wis only

sue d M a xim ilia

n Sandor in his own na

m e , a s truste e of two trusts with purporte d

inte re sts in the

subje c t prope rty , thus de stroy ing c om ple te dive rsity
. Se e De mare

s t v . HSBC

Bank USA, N .A. , 920 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th C ir. 2019); s e e also Ame ric old Re alty Tr. v . C onagra Foods, Inc

. , 577 U.S. 378, 383, 136 S. C t. 1012, 1016, 194 L. Ed. 2d 71 (2016); N a v a rro Sav . Ass’n v . Le e , 446 U.S. 458, 465–66, 100 S. Ct. 1779, 1784, 64 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1980). The distric t
c ourt did not err whe n it re je c te d Le wis’ s spe c ulative a sse rtion tha t Sa ndor fa lsifie d his c e rtific ate of nat

ura liz ation. Se e Safe

Air for Eve ry onev . Me

y e r , 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2004). And though litiga nts m ay som e t im e s c ure la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion by dism issing the

pa rty tha t de fe ats dive rsity

of

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 0
- 5 5 1 0 0 2c itiz e nship, 1 C a lifornia la w re quire s tha

t the pla intiff in a

quie t titlea c tion “ nam e
a s de fe nda

nts the pe rsons ha

ving a dve rse c la i m s tha

t a re of re c ord or known to the pla i ntiff or re a s ona

bly a ppa re n t from an inspe c tion of theprope rty .” C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 762.060(b); se e also C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 762.010; Ranc h at the Falls LLC

v . O’N e al , 250 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 585, 597–98 (Ct . App. 2019). Finally , e ve n if the c itiz e nship of thetrusts’ be ne fic ia rie s, rathe r tha

n tha t of the ir truste e s, we re de te rm i native of dive rsity jurisdic tion he re , Le wis did not me e t his burde n of showing who the

trusts’ be ne fic ia

rie s a re . Se e K o k k one n v . Guardian Life

Ins. C o. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct . 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). As a
re sult, thedistric t c ourt did not err whe n it he ld tha t it la c ke d dive rsity jurisdic tion
ove r the a c tion. Like wise , the distric t c o urt did not err whe n it de te rm ine d tha t it la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion unde r e ithe r 28 U.S.C . § 1331 or § 1367(a ). The 2008 de fa ult judgm e nt is fa

r too re m ove d from the c urre nt proc e e ding to ha v e provide d the d istric t c o urt with a

nc i lla ry jurisdic tion. S

e e Pe ac oc k

v . Thomas , 516 U.S. 349, 354, 116 S. C t. 862, 867, 133 L. Ed. 2d 817 (1996); K o k k o ne n , 511 U.S. a

t 378–80, 114 S. C t. at 1676. M o re ove r, supple m e n ta l jurisdic t ion unde r § 1367 is ina pposite

1 Se e Grupo Dataflux v . Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P. , 541 U.S. 567, 571–73, 124 S. C t. 1920, 1924–25, 158 L. Ed. 2d 866 (2004).
2 0
- 5 5 1 0 0 3be c a

use this proc e e ding is se

pa ra te from the prior a c tion tha

t le d to the de fa

ult judgm e nt. Se e Pe ac oc k, 516 U.S. a t 355, 116 S. C t. at 867. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by dism issing the a c tion with pre judic e . Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 15(a )(2); DC D Programs, Ltd. v. Le ighton , 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th C ir. 1987). Thedistric t c o urt found tha

t Le wis a nd his a ttorne y ha d e nga g e d in ba d fa i th c onduc t. Thosefindings we re not c le arly e rrone ous. Se e Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1259–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ). B e c a use of tha t ba d fa i th c onduc t, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by dism issing the a c tion without le ave to a m e nd a nd with pre

judic e . Se e Sorosk

y v . Burroughs C

orp. , 826 F.2d 794, 805 (9th C ir. 1987). AFFIRM E D.

2 0
- 5 5 1 0 0 4