NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. S

ee 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 APPEALS2

Courtney Kristek, also known as Courtney Dolan and Courtney Dolan

Kristek, 1 appeals a district court ’s dismiss al of her complaint in this insurance
coverage case. Dismissals u nder Rule 12(b) or (c) and determinations of subject

matter 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 b e “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). Th at logic applies here. T he district court made plain

1 This opinion uses the name Kristek consistent with the case caption in this C ourt. 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 r e asonably 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 defe ndant, 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. S ee 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

. ” T he district court therefore properly4

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).
I II
. Kristek ’s Fourteenth Amendment “due process” attack on the district court’s ruling is mostly a resta tement of her other theories for reversal and boil s 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 t he 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 th e entire hearing or to respond to the amended notice of removal , t he
record shows that after Kristek became disconnected from the hearing, the district

court made multiple phone calls , sen t e - mail messages, and delay ed 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 w as defective.5 I V. 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

assu ming 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 l ast name s as plaintiff and as counsel. But the court made pla i n 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 T here is no basis for us to conclude that the district judge was biased.
T he 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.”