Opinion
22-16814
08-21-2023
LOWELL ROBINSON, Jr., Master Sergeant USMC, Retired, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP & RAM; CHRYSLER CAPITAL, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00867-DGC David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
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.
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).
The Clerk will maintain Docket Entry No. 5 under seal.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).