Christopher David Krohe v. Zandra Steinhardt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER DAVID KROHE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ZANDRA STEINHARDT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-17259
D.C. Nos.
1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS
1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS
1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher David Krohe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a contract
dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). We
* 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).
FILED
JUN 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17259
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Krohe’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Krohe failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on
district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (conferring jurisdiction on district
courts where the plaintiff alleges that the parties are completely diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --