Court Opinion

ID: 9891774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 17:00:48.628163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:41.032749
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC MALONE,                                    No. 22-56201

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00929-FMO-PVC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Eric Malone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Prather v. AT&T,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Inc., 847 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Malone’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Malone failed to allege a federal question or meet the

requirements for diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1332; Badgerow

v. Walters, 142 S. Ct. 1310, 1314 (2022) (the Federal Arbitration Act does not

create jurisdiction, and a federal court must have an “independent jurisdictional

basis” to confirm an arbitral award); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68

(1996) (§ 1332 applies only when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from

the citizenship of each defendant”); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80

(2010) (“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it

has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States

v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-56201