Case Name: Carmelita VIRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-16
Citations: 83 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 03-55509; D.C. No. CV-02-01154-GAF
Parties: Carmelita VIRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 237–237

Head Matter:
Carmelita VIRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-55509.
D.C. No. CV-02-01154-GAF.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 16, 2003.
Carmelita Viray, pro se, Temecula, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alan S. Weinger, Alan S. Weinger Law Offices, S. Farr, Michelle Lipton, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carmelita Viray appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), her action alleging that the California Department of Corporations wrongfully denied her administrative claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Dismissal was proper because Viray's complaint alleged that all parties were citizens of the same state, see Ranter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.2001), and presented no federal question, see Audette v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1999).
Viray's motion for default judgment is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.