Opinion
20-17191
07-27-2021
BEOWULF VON PRINCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DSM NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS LLC, a California corporation; SWISS POST SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01283-VC
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Beowulf von Prince appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising from an employment dispute and arbitration award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for lack of standing). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed von Prince's claims against defendant DSM Nutritional Products LLC because von Prince failed to allege facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (discussing requirements for Article III standing, including that "the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant" as opposed to "the independent action of some third party not before the court" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed defendant Swiss Post Solutions, Inc. because von Prince failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Swiss Post Solutions, Inc. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or 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 not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.