Opinion
No. 15-15807
10-04-2016
CHRISTINE WONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELLEN ANDERSON, AKA The Harrison Team; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05524-CRB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Christine Wong appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her action seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement. We review de novo. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wong's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Wong did not present a federal question on the face of her amended complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint).
For the same reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wong's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing her action. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wong's action without leave to amend. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998) (leave to amend not required "where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal"); see also Chodos v. W. Publ'g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review).
We reject as without merit Wong's contention that the district court improperly dismissed the action without first holding a hearing. See Scholastic Entm't, Inc., 336 F.3d at 985 ("While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.