Case Name: David TOMASELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH ARKANSAS WHOLESALE, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-21
Citations: 274 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 07-16638
Parties: David TOMASELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH ARKANSAS WHOLESALE, INC.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
David TOMASELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH ARKANSAS WHOLESALE, INC.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-16638.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2008.
Filed April 21, 2008.
David Tomasello, Tonopah, AZ, pro se.
Steven Greogry Biddle, Esq., Emily M. Craiger, Esq., Littler Mendelson, P.C., Denise Troy, Esq., Timothy J. Thomason, Esq., Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Fried-lander, PA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Jennings Haug & Cunningham, LLP, Donald K. Wilson, Jr., Esq., Broening Oberg Woods Wilson & Cass, Kendall D. Steele, Esq., Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, Richard F. Albrecht, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of appellant's civil action for failure state a claim sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction and failure to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court has received and reviewed appellant's response to the court's February 14, 2008 order to show cause and the responses and reply thereto. A review of the record and these responses indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per cu-riam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.