Case Name: Patty LOVAAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-16
Citations: 374 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 08-35987
Parties: Patty LOVAAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 374
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
Patty LOVAAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-35987.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2009.
Filed Nov. 16, 2009.
James P. O’Brien, O’Brien Law Office, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Timothy J. Cavan, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lovaas appeals from the district court's order dismissing her amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the order de novo, see Nuclear Info. & Res. Service v. United States Dept. of Transp., 457 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Lovaas' abuse of process claim because she did not allege the misuse of legal process, which requires the involvement of a court. See Hughes v. Lynch, 338 Mont. 214, 164 P.3d 913, 919 (2008); see also Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 121, at 898 (5th ed. 1984) ("[I]t is clear that the judicial process must in some manner be involved."); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682.
Lovaas abandoned her other claims at oral argument.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.