PRINCE v. DSM NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS LLC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-27No. No. 20-17191

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing von Prince's claims for lack of Article III standing against DSM Nutritional Products LLC and for lack of personal jurisdiction against Swiss Post Solutions, Inc. was affirmed.

Beowulf von Prince, representing himself, appealed a district court decision that dismissed his employment-related claims against two defendants. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and upheld it on two separate grounds. As to DSM Nutritional Products LLC, the court found that von Prince failed to establish Article III standing because his complaint did not adequately allege facts showing that any injury he suffered was traceable to that defendant's actions rather than to the actions of a third party. Regarding Swiss Post Solutions, Inc., the court determined that von Prince did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the district court possessed personal jurisdiction over that defendant.

The appellate court declined to consider several categories of material: arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, matters not specifically argued in von Prince's opening brief, and documents that were not presented to the district court during the proceedings below.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether plaintiff established Article III standing to sue DSM Nutritional Products LLC
Whether district court had personal jurisdiction over Swiss Post Solutions, Inc.
Scope of appellate review regarding arguments and materials not presented below

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his employment and arbitration dispute claims against two defendants.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Beowulf von Prince appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action arising from an employment dispute and arbitration award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for lack of standing). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed von Princes claims against defendant DSM Nutritional Products LLC because von Prince failed to allege facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (discussing requirements for Article III standing, including that “the injury has to be fairly ․ trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant” as opposed to “the independent action of some third party not before the court” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed defendant Swiss Post Solutions, Inc. because von Prince failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Swiss Post Solutions, Inc. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.