Case Name: Penny WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-19
Citations: 143 F. App'x 863
Docket Number: No. 03-57186; D.C. No. CV 01-08865 MMM
Parties: Penny WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 863–863

Head Matter:
Penny WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-57186.
D.C. No. CV 01-08865 MMM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2005.
Decided Sept. 19, 2005.
Esther R. Sorkin, Ball & Yorke, Ventura, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err in denying White's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Although the district court denied the motion because it determined that White had not shown good cause for relief, it also was correct in its observation that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to White's underlying claims. Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1992).
White contends that the district court committed reversible error because it raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and without giving her an opportunity to be heard. However, "[w]hile a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). In any event, White has had a full opportunity to brief the jurisdictional issue in connection with the present appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited by or to the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.