NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COURTNEY KRISTEK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE 

INSURANCE COMPANY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17072 

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-01314-JAD-DJA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 18, 2021**

San Francisco, California

Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,***International 

Trade Judge.

* 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).

*** The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of 

International Trade, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Courtney Kristek, also known as Courtney Dolan and Courtney DolanKristek,1

appeals a district court’s dismissal of her complaint in this insurance 

coverage case. Dismissals under Rule 12(b) or (c) and determinations of subjectmatter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. Providence Health Plan v. McDowell, 385 

F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Corona-Contreras v. Gruel, 857 F.3d 1025, 1028 

(9th Cir. 2017); Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th 

Cir. 2017). We affirm.

I.

We first address our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 

dismissal order stated that, if Kristek opted not to amend her complaint, the district 

court would consider it an admission that she could not plead plausible claims and 

would dismiss with prejudice. Rather than seek leave, Kristek filed a notice of appeal 

on the final day of the ten-day period.

We have found a district court’s order disposing of all claims to be “a full 

adjudication of the issues” when, if not for the grant of leave to amend, “the dismissal 

would have clearly evidenced the judge’s intention that it be the court’s final act in 

the matter.” Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 892 & n.5 

(9th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). That logic applies here. The district court made plain 

1 This opinion uses the name Kristek consistent with the case caption in this Court. 

We address this issue below.
3 

that it would have dismissed with prejudice the day after the notice of appeal was 

filed, and had it done so the notice of appeal would have ripened. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(2). We therefore have appellate jurisdiction.

II.

Kristek contends the district court lacked jurisdiction and should have 

remanded to state court for three reasons. None has merit.

First, while the notice of removal referred to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the district

court reasonably accepted defense counsel’s statement that the reference to § 1333 

rather than § 1332 was a typographical error. Second, the notice of removal was 

timely because the removing defendant, Travelers, was served on June 16, 2020, and 

filed the notice on July 16, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(A).

Third, the district court rightly found that Travelers’ failure to include proof of 

service on every defendant with the notice of removal was a de minimis defect and 

appropriately granted five days to amend. See Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA 

LLC, 707 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013).

Finally, the district court did not err in treating a non-diverse defendant as a 

“sham defendant.” The court was unable to discern any basis on which liability could 

be imposed against that defendant, and Kristek failed to seek leave to amend despite 

the district court’s warning that failure to do so would be treated as a “concession 

that she cannot plead plausible claims.” The district court therefore properly 
4 

exercised diversity jurisdiction to dismiss this case. See Morris v. Princess Cruises, 

Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001); Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 

889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018).

III.

Kristek’s Fourteenth Amendment “due process” attack on the district court’s 

ruling is mostly a restatement of her other theories for reversal and boils down to the 

theory that it was unconstitutional for the district court to rule against her. That 

theory is so obviously meritless that we find it unnecessary to address it. And 

Kristek’s contention that the district court violated her rights by ruling without a jury 

trial presupposes that her complaint successfully stated claims on which relief could 

be granted.

While Kristek claims the district court did not give her “the opportunity” to 

participate in the entire hearing or to respond to the amended notice of removal, the 

record shows that after Kristek became disconnected from the hearing, the district 

court made multiple phone calls, sent e-mail messages, and delayed the conclusion 

of the hearing for 90 minutes to allow further time for contact. Moreover, nothing in 

the district court’s order prevented Kristek from filing a new motion to remand if 

she believed something in the amended notice of removal was defective.
5 

IV.

Kristek raises several claims of bias against the district court. First, she claims 

the district court discriminated against her based on an unspecified disability that

prevented her from appearing at an in-person hearing during the pandemic. Even 

assuming Kristek is disabled (something not supported by the record), the district 

court granted Kristek’s request for a videoconference hearing, so she cannot claim 

prejudice.

Second, Kristek complains that the district court questioned her use of 

different last names as plaintiff and as counsel. But the court made plain that it was 

doing so simply to make sure that the caption was accurate and that the court 

understood the identities of the parties.2 There is no basis for us to conclude that the 

district judge was biased.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 The complaint listed the plaintiff as “Courtney Kristek” and her attorney as 

“Courtney L. Dolan” and began with “COMES NOW Plaintiff, COURTNEY 

KRISTEK, individually, by and through her counsel, Courtney L. Dolan, Esq., of 

DOLAN LAW GROUP, LTD.”