GONZALO R. RUBANG, Jr. v. Eric R. Brooks;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GONZALO R. RUBANG, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERIC R. BROOKS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15558
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d
* 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
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15558
1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Rubang’s action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Rubang failed to allege any violation of
federal law or diversity of citizenship in his fourth amended complaint. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th
Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332); Wander v. Kaus, 304
F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question
jurisdiction under § 1331).
We reject as unsupported by the record Rubang’s contention that the district
court failed to consider his fifth amended complaint.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --