Court Opinion

ID: 9891461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 17:01:05.655742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:24.590274
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG EUGENE RAMSELL; MONNIE                    No. 22-16405
RAMSELL,
                                                D.C. No. 3:22-cv-08119-DWL
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM *

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee
for: trustee of Banc of America Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-K;
BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE
SECURITIES INCORPORATED PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2003-K TRUST; 50 BRONCO DRIVE,
SEDONA, AZ; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

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

      *
             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).
      Craig Eugene Ramsell and Monnie Ramsell appeal pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing their action concerning ownership of real property in

Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s determination that it lacked 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 the Ramsells’ action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because the Ramsells failed to allege a federal question or

diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (federal courts “have an independent obligation to

determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a

challenge from any party”); Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d

770, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2000) (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of

establishing it); see also Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1313 (9th

Cir. 2022) (“Equitable jurisdiction is distinct from subject matter jurisdiction,

although both are required for a federal court to hear the merits of an equitable

claim.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     22-16405