Timothy C. Rote v. Linda L. Marshall;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY C. ROTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LINDA L. MARSHALL; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-35847
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00082-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Timothy C. Rote appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging various state law claims concerning his attorney
malpractice action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We consider
sua sponte whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Elhouty v.
* 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
MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-35847
Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 886 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 2018). We vacate and
remand.
Following the removal of this action by the sole federal defendant under 28
U.S.C. § 1442(a), the district court dismissed all claims against the United States
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because this
dismissal was jurisdictional, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
Rote’s state law claims. See Herman Family Revocable Tr. v. Teddy Bear, 254
F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 2001) (if federal claims are dismissed under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court lacks the authority to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367). Accordingly, the district court was required to remand the action to state
court once Rote’s claims against the United States were dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions for the
district court to remand the case to state court.
The motions for disqualification (Docket Entry No. 22) and to supplement
the record on appeal (Docket Entry Nos. 35 and 38) are denied as moot.
Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --