Case Name: Seth ABRAHAMS, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-24
Citations: 571 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 13-15889
Parties: Seth ABRAHAMS, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
Seth ABRAHAMS, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
No. 13-15889.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014.
Filed April 24, 2014.
Steven W. Yuen, Senior, Kronenberg Law, P.C., Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-eoun-ter-defendant-Appellant.
Karl S. Kronenberger, Esquire, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esquire, Virginia Sander-son, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-eounter-claimant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The complaint seeks declaratory relief regarding claims that had been previously dismissed twice, and hence could not now create any justiciable controversy. Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(B); see Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining the "two dismissal rule").
On appeal, the appellant argues that the action should not have been dismissed because the complaint laid out an additional cause of action of qui tarn sufficient to sustain subject matter jurisdiction. A close examination of the complaint reveals no such claim. This is the inevitable conclusion under even the lenient standards of notice pleading, and such lenient standards are no longer applicable. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
The This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.