Case Name: Alan W. JONES and Kathryn Marie Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DALLAS NEUROLOGICAL AND SPINE ASSOCIATES PA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-18
Citations: 622 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 13-15488
Parties: Alan W. JONES and Kathryn Marie Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DALLAS NEUROLOGICAL AND SPINE ASSOCIATES PA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
Alan W. JONES and Kathryn Marie Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DALLAS NEUROLOGICAL AND SPINE ASSOCIATES PA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15488.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 9, 2015.
Filed Nov. 18, 2015.
Alan W. Jones, Scottsdale, AZ, pro se.
Kathryn Marie Jones, Scottsdale, AZ, pro se.
Jonathan Barnes, Jr., Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, Diana L. Faust, David E. Olesky, Cory Matthew Sutker, Esquire, Cooper & Scully, P.C., Dallas, TX, Lisa Marie Baird, Reed Smith LLP, Michael Kevin Brown, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kathryn and Alan Jones appeal the district court's dismissal of their declaratory judgment action seeking a tolling of the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim they plan to bring. The Joneses have not presented a justiciable case or controversy. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747, 118 S.Ct. 1694, 140 L.Ed.2d 970 (1998). It is not clear whether the Joneses will ever bring a medical malpractice claim, or if they do, whether the defendants will raise the statute of limitations as a defense. Until that time, we lack jurisdiction over the claim.
, AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.