Case Name: Philip PULVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, a non-profit corporation; et al. Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-05
Citations: 536 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 10-35906
Parties: Philip PULVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, a non-profit corporation; et al. Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 730–730

Head Matter:
Philip PULVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, a non-profit corporation; et al. Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-35906.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
Philip Pulver, Kennewick, WA, pro se.
Delbert D. Miller, Al Van Kampen, Roh-de & Van Kampen, PLLC, Seattle, WA for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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
Philip Pulver appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of standing. Del. Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Pulver was not a party to the contract in his individual capacity and lacked standing to maintain the corporate plaintiffs breach of contract claim in his individual capacity following the dismissal of the corporate plaintiff. See Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd., 601 F.2d 429, 439-40 & n. 13 (9th Cir.1979) (president and sole stockholder of corporation lacked standing in his individual capacity to assert contract claims on behalf of corporation).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.