* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

METHWOLD INTERNATIONAL

FINANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

R. CHRISTOPHER MANFREDONIA;

CARL WINTERS; MCNEAL, INC.;

MIKE MCNEAL; CAMERON

WINTERS; JOHN AVERY; WALTER S.

MESCH; MINDY IRIS; DOP, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellants,

 and

KARIS ANGELIA MANAGEMENT,

INC.; RUSSEL AKINS; TARYN

AZELSKI; KEVIN BAKER; DENNIS

BINKLEY; LEE BRAUN; KEVIN S.

BRYDEN; ROBERT BRYDEN; KEVIN

BUSCHER; CRD TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.; SUSAN E. CHAMP; DORTHEA

CHILD; KAREN CHRISTENSEN;

STEVEN CHRISTENSEN; JAMES

COOPER; D&T INVESTMENTS; LEWIS

DAWLEY; CHUCK DAY; RICHARD

No. 10-16208

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00064-LDGPAL

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

SEP 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

DUBOIS; JOEL EDWARDS; ANGELA

FARLEY; FARMERS & MERCHANTS

BANK; GARLAND RAY FITE;

WILLIAM FOREMAN; ARNOLD

FRIESEN; CLAUDIA FURLOW; AMY

GAFNEY; ROBERT GAFNEY;

MEREDITH GIAMBATTISTA;

PAULETTE GIAMBATTISTA;

GOLDFINGER COIN AND BULLION,

INC.; CHRISTOPHER R. HALL;

MICHAEL HINSON; KEITH B.

HONEYCUTT; INWEST TITLE

SERVICES; JITE HOLDINGS PTY.

LTD.; MARK JOHNSON, Assistant

Federal Public Defender; KELLY

LEHTO; ADRIANE N. MARTIN;

DEANNA MARTIN; DENNIS V.

MARTIN; RICHARD C. MOELLER;

ALEXANDER MONCADA; MICHAEL

MORRIS; RUSSELL MORRIS; BESSIE

MORROW; GALEN NELSON; STEVE

NYGREN; MIKE ONIONS; SINDA M.

ONIONS; MORGAN PAVON; BROOKE

PETERSON; TROY PETERSON; JASON

M. PORCELLI; RD SOLUTIONS;

LARRY ROBERTS; RANDALL

RODDY; KEN ROWEN; WILLIAM R.

SANDERLIN; BILL SHAFFER; BARRY

SULLIVAN; THE BULLION

EXCHANGE; THE CLOTTEY GROUP,

INC.; THE DENT GUYS, LLC; TERRY

G. VAN HILSEN; CHARLES WAGES;

DYLAN WAGES; JEANETTE WAGES;

BRADLEY R. WILLIAMS; DAVID R.

WILLIAMS; SCOTT WOLT,

 Defendants,
3

ARTHUR B. KESTER,

 Respondent-intervenor,

BELINDA BARON; JOSEPH W.

HANDLEY; DAVID ELIZONDO;

CLARK MCKAY; DAVID SHOCKLEY,

 Real-party-in-interest.

METHWOLD INTERNATIONAL

FINANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KARIS ANGELIA MANAGEMENT,

INC.; R. CHRISTOPHER

MANFREDONIA; CARL WINTERS;

MCNEAL, INC.; MIKE MCNEAL;

CAMERON WINTERS; JOHN AVERY;

WALTER S. MESCH; MINDY IRIS;

DOP, INC.; RUSSEL AKINS; TARYN

AZELSKI; KEVIN BAKER; DENNIS

BINKLEY; LEE BRAUN; KEVIN S.

BRYDEN; ROBERT BRYDEN; KEVIN

BUSCHER; CRD TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.; SUSAN E. CHAMP; DORTHEA

CHILD; KAREN CHRISTENSEN;

JAMES COOPER; D&T

INVESTMENTS; LEWIS DAWLEY;

CHUCK DAY; RICHARD DUBOIS;

JOEL EDWARDS; ANGELA FARLEY;

FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK;

No. 10-16330

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00064-LDGPAL
4

GARLAND RAY FITE; WILLIAM

FOREMAN; ARNOLD FRIESEN;

CLAUDIA FURLOW; AMY GAFNEY;

ROBERT GAFNEY; MEREDITH

GIAMBATTISTA; PAULETTE

GIAMBATTISTA; GOLDFINGER COIN

AND BULLION, INC.; CHRISTOPHER

R. HALL; MICHAEL HINSON; KEITH

B. HONEYCUTT; INWEST TITLE

SERVICES; JITE HOLDINGS PTY.

LTD.; MARK JOHNSON, Assistant

Federal Public Defender; KELLY

LEHTO; ADRIANE N. MARTIN;

DEANNA MARTIN; DENNIS V.

MARTIN; RICHARD C. MOELLER;

ALEXANDER MONCADA; MICHAEL

MORRIS; RUSSELL MORRIS; BESSIE

MORROW; GALEN NELSON; STEVE

NYGREN; MIKE ONIONS; SINDA M.

ONIONS; MORGAN PAVON; BROOKE

PETERSON; TROY PETERSON; JASON

M. PORCELLI; RD SOLUTIONS;

LARRY ROBERTS; RANDALL

RODDY; KEN ROWEN; WILLIAM R.

SANDERLIN; BILL SHAFFER; BARRY

SULLIVAN; THE BULLION

EXCHANGE; THE CLOTTEY GROUP,

INC.; THE DENT GUYS, LLC; TERRY

G. VAN HILSEN; CHARLES WAGES;

DYLAN WAGES; JEANETTE WAGES;

BRADLEY R. WILLIAMS; DAVID R.

WILLIAMS; SCOTT WOLT,

 Defendants,

ARTHUR B. KESTER,
 ** The Honorable Morris S. Arnold, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

5

 Respondent-intervenor,

JOSEPH W. HANDLEY; BELINDA

BARON; CLARK MCKAY; DAVID

SHOCKLEY; DAVID ELIZONDO,

 Real-party-in-interest,

 and

STEVEN CHRISTENSEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2012

Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: ARNOLD, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Appellants, defendant-claimants below, appeal from the district court’s

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a 28 U.S.C. § 1335 interpleader

action brought by Methwold International Finance Company. The facts of this case
1

 Though we also decline to decide the issue, dicta in a prior decision

suggests that Nevada may have personal jurisdiction over Methwold as a result of

Methwold bringing an interpleader action in this case. See Dow Chem. Co. v.

Calderon, 422 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gen. Contracting & Trading

Co. v. Interpole, Inc., 940 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir. 1991) (citations omitted))

(“assum[ing] without deciding” that we would apply a First Circuit case holding

that “personal jurisdiction exists where a defendant also independently seeks

affirmative relief in a separate action before the same court concerning the same

transaction or occurrence” whether the action “take[s] place prior to the suit’s

institution, or at the time suit is brought, or after suit has started”).

6

are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but we

dismiss because appellants lack standing on appeal. 

A party appealing a judgment must be able to satisfy the constitutional

requirements for standing. Knisley v. Network Assocs., Inc., 312 F.3d 1123, 1126

(9th Cir. 2002). Constitutional standing requires that an appellant show that it is

“likely, and not merely speculative, that a favorable decision will provide redress.”

Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). 

Although we are sympathetic to the appellants’ predicament in this case, 

and understand the difficulties associated with bringing a separate suit against

Methwold because it is a foreign company,1

 a favorable decision would not provide

any redress for the appellants’ alleged injuries. There are no funds to distribute

because the proposed interpleader fund was not deposited with the district court.

Methwold is also unlikely to bring another motion to deposit funds or respond to
7

any further proceedings. Methwold failed to respond to the district court’s order

below demanding that Methwold show cause as to why the case should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and it has not responded to this appeal. Indeed,

Methwold’s counsel have withdrawn from the case. It is not within our power to

force Methwold back into court, and any argument that Methwold might

voluntarily return is speculative at best. Thus, because there is no redress available

for appellants’ alleged injuries, they lack standing on appeal.

DISMISSED.