N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM R . HANC O C K, individually and a s Truste e of Ha

nc o c k a nd C om pa ny , Inc . Profit Sha

ring Trust, under trust instrum e nt April 3, 1993, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. KULANA PAR TNER S, LLC , a Ha wa ii Lim ite d Lia

bility C om

pa ny ; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND ESC R OW OF HAW AII, INC . , a Hawa ii c orporation; DOES, 1-10, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15233 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00198-DKW RLP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii De rric k Ka

ha la W a tson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2016 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : WALLAC E, FAR R IS, and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED NOV 07 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Appe lla nt W i llia m Ha nc oc k a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt (1) granting Appe lle e Kula na Partne rs, LLC ’ s (Kula

na ) m o tion to dism

iss, (2) granting Appe lle e Fide lity Nationa l Title an d Esc row of Ha wa ii, Inc .’ s (Fide l ity ) m otion for judgme nt on theple a dings, a nd (3) de ny ing Ha

nc oc k’ s m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt. W e dism iss the a ppe a l for la c k of jurisdic tion. In the jurisdic tiona l a lle gation of his c om pla int, Ha nc oc k a lle ge s tha

t Kula na is “ a c itiz e n of the State of Ha wa ii.” As a

lim i te d lia

b i lity c om pa ny , Kula na is “ a c itiz e n of e ve ry

sta te of whic h its [] m e m

be rs a re c itiz e ns.” J

ohnson v . C

olumbia Props. Anc horage

, LP , 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th C ir. 2006). C onse que n tly , Ha nc oc k wa s obliga

te d to a lle ge the c itiz e nship of Kula na ’ s m e m be rs, a n d his fa i lure to do so re n de rs the a lle gation of dive rsity de fe c tive . N

e w Ge n, LLC

v . Safe C i g, LLC , — F.3d — , Nos. 13-56157, 14-57015, 13-56225, 2016 W L 6137483, a

t *2–3 (9th C ir. Se pt. 7, 2016). This c ourt the re fore c annot e xe rc ise jurisdic tion on tha t ba s is. Hanc oc k’ s a lte rnative jurisdic tiona l a lle gation, tha t this c a se is “ re late d to” a ba nkruptc y c a se , is a lso insuffic ie nt. Jurisdic tion will lie pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1334(b) whe re the outc o m e of the a c tion “ c ould a lte r the de btor’ s rights, lia bilitie s, options, or fre e dom of a c tion (e ithe r positive ly or ne g a tive ly ) and whic h in a ny wa y im pa c ts upon the

ha ndling a nd a dm i nistra

tion of theba

nkrupt e sta

te .” Fe itz v . Gre at W

. Sav . ( In reFe itz ), 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th C ir. 1988), quoting

2Pac or, Inc . v . Higgins , 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d C ir. 1984). Ha nc oc k ’ s thre a dba

re a lle gation tha

t a de btor’ s e sta

t e “ m a y have an inte re st in thesubje c t prope rty ” is woe fully ina de q uate t o pe rm it us to c onc lude tha t jurisdic t ion e xists. Ac c o rdingly , we m ust dismiss the a

ppe a l. On re m and, the distric t

c ourt should de te rm ine whe the r dive rsity e xists be twe e n the pa

rtie s, whe the r this c a se is “ re late d to” a ba nkruptc y proc e e d ing unde r se c tion 1334(b), or whe the r the re is a ny othe r ba sis for fe de ra l c ourt jurisdic tion. This pa

ne l re t a ins jurisdic tion to he ar any future a ppe a ls in this m

a tte r. APPE A L DISM ISSE D.

3