Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiffs, Dr. Herbert B. Avery and Marinaba T. Avery, challenged the district court's dismissal of their lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The appellate court upheld this dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish federal jurisdiction. Specifically, they did not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because both parties and multiple defendants were citizens of California, thereby lacking complete diversity, a necessity as elucidated in Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis. Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ claims, which included breach of contract and various tort claims, did not constitute a federal question under 28 U.S.C. 1331, as they were not grounded in U.S. law. Additionally, the court ruled that the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, could not independently establish jurisdiction. Therefore, the dismissal was affirmed, and the ruling is non-precedential as per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that this Act does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, which was not met in this case.
Reasoning: The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, was also not applicable as it does not create an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that diversity jurisdiction was not established because both the plaintiffs and several defendants were citizens of California, thus lacking complete diversity.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Averys did not adequately assert federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, as both the plaintiffs and several defendants are citizens of California, violating 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).
Federal Question Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the Averys' claims did not present a federal question, as they were not based on U.S. law.
Reasoning: The Averys' claims—breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, bad faith, unfair and deceptive practices, fraud on the court, malice, and failure to defend—did not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. 1331, as they did not arise under U.S. law.
Precedential Value under 9th Cir. R. 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this case is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by the Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The disposition is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.