MEMORANDUM **
Timothy C. Rote appeals pro se from the district courts 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. 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 Rotes 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 Rotes claims against the United States were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
We vacate the district courts 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.