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

AM ON SILVAREYES, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. C YNTHIA GONZALES; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55898 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01587-C AB KSC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C athy Ann B e nc ive ngo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Aniba l Silva and R a

m on Silva -R e y e s a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing the ir a c tion a lle ging viola tions of fe de ra l, sta

te , and inte rnationa l la

w. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de 

# FIL ED AUG 04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).novo, My e rs v . Be nne tt Law Offic e s , 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d the a c t ion for im prope r ve nue be c a

use no de fe nda

nt is a lle ge d to re side in theSouthe rn Distric t of C a l ifornia , 28 U.S.C . § 1391(b)(1), a

nd no “ pa rt of the e ve nts or omissions giving rise to thec la im [s] oc c urre d” the re , 28 U.S.C . § 1391(b)(2). The distric t c ourt prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t it la c ke d pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r the Nic ara gua

n de fe nda nts be c a use pla intiffs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to e sta blish tha t the Nic ara gua

n de fe nda nts ha ve “ c ontinuous a

nd sy s te m atic ” c onta c ts with C a lifornia

tha t “ a pproxim ate phy sic a l pre se n c e ,” Sc hw arze n e gge r v . Fre d Martin Motor C

o. , 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d) (ge ne ra l jurisdic t ion), or tha t the ir c la im s arose out of or re late to theNic ara g u an de fe nda nts’ forum -re l ate d a c tivitie s, id. at 802 (spe c ific jurisdic tion). C ontra

ry to pla i ntiffs’ c onte ntions, R ule s 4(k)(1) & (2) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure do not c onfe r pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r de fe nda nts. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing plaintiffs’ m o tion for le ave to filea s e c ond a m e nde d c om

pla int be c a

use the propose d c om

pla int did not re m e d y the jurisdic tiona l de fic ie nc ie s a nd furthe r am e ndm e nt would befutile .

1 4 - 5 5 8 9 8 2Se eAE e

x re l. He rnande

z v . C ty . of Tulare , 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie w ). W e do not c onside r m atte rs ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). Appe lla nt’ s August 7, 2014, Octobe r 20, 2014, a n d De c e m be r 3, 2015 re que s ts for judic ia l notic e , a n d De c e m

be r 26, 2015 re que st tha

t the c ourt re fe r a ppe lle e s to theUnite d State s De pa rtm e nt of Justic e , a

re de nie d. Appe lla nt’ s De c e m

b e r 4, 2015 m otion for misc e lla ne ous re lie f is gra

nte d. The C le rk sha ll re m ove Doc ke t Entry No. 34-2 from

the doc ke t a

nd sha ll re pla c e it with Doc ke t Entry

No. 35-2. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 5 8 9 8 3