Court Opinion

ID: 9366510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 20:01:34.533291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.921160
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC., by No. 21-56287
its founders; GEORGE F.X. ROMBACH,
                                       D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02379-TWR-
                Plaintiffs-Appellants, BLM

and
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
B. GREEN; et al.,

                Plaintiffs,

 v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                    Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      George F.X. Rombach and Constitution Association, Inc. appeal from the

      *
             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).
district court’s judgment dismissing their action challenging Kamala Harris’s

eligibility to serve as Vice President. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.

v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs

lacked standing. See Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 2011)

(dismissing a voter’s claim that President Obama was ineligible for the office

because the plaintiff asserted nothing “more than a generalized interest of all

citizens in constitutional governance” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)); see also Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 938

F.3d 1147, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth the requirements to establish

organizational standing).

      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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     21-56287