Court Opinion

ID: 9560990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:00:49.77242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:27.842877
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOWELL ROBINSON, Jr., Master Sergeant No. 22-16814
USMC, Retired,
                                      D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00867-DGC
              Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

GREENVILLE CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP
& RAM; CHRYSLER CAPITAL,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Lowell Robinson, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

      *
             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).
We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2). Meland v.

WEBER, 2 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2021) (standing under Rule 12(b)(1)); Axiom

Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017) (personal

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2)). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s claims against Greenville

Chrysler Dodge Jeep & Ram for lack of personal jurisdiction because Robinson

did not allege facts sufficient to establish that this defendant had sufficient contacts

with Arizona to provide the court either with general or specific personal

jurisdiction. See Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1020-25 (9th Cir.

2017) (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction).

      The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s claims against Santander

Consumer USA Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital for lack of standing because Robinson

failed to establish that he was his brother’s personal representative or otherwise

entitled to bring a claim on his brother’s behalf. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3110

(Arizona survival statute limiting right to assert surviving actions to decedent’s

personal representative); Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1053-57

(9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that state survivorship law applies to § 1983 claims,

and declining to interpret federal common law to allow an individual without a

“legal relationship to the decedent” to bring a surviving ADA claim).

                                           2                                     22-16814
The Clerk will maintain Docket Entry No. 5 under seal.

AFFIRMED.

                                 3                       22-16814