PRINGLE v. CARDALL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-23No. No. 19-16914

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Pringle's claims against the seven defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, as Pringle failed to allege facts establishing sufficient minimum contacts between those defendants and California.

Pamela Pringle appealed the district court's dismissal of her federal civil rights lawsuit against seven defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and found that Pringle had not alleged sufficient facts showing these defendants had adequate connections to California to justify the court's authority over them. The court emphasized that a defendant's presence in a case cannot be based merely on the plaintiff's residence in the state.

The appellate court also addressed several ancillary matters: it denied Pringle's request for judicial notice of certain materials, treated her expedited ruling motion as moot, and rejected the defendants' request for attorney fees and costs because they failed to file a separate motion as required by appellate rules.

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

Key issues

Whether district court had personal jurisdiction over defendants lacking sufficient minimum contacts with California
Whether plaintiff's residence in forum state alone establishes jurisdiction over non-resident defendants
Procedural requirements for requesting appellate attorney fees

Procedural posture

Pro se appellant Pringle appealed an interlocutory district court order dismissing certain defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was certified for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Pamela Denise Pringle appeals pro se from the district courts order dismissing certain defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. Because the district court certified its interlocutory order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pringles claims against defendants Sandy Jones, Amanda Gentry, Noel Barlow-Hust, Judy Mesick, Cindy McDonald, Mark Kubinski, and Elisa Magnuson for lack of personal jurisdiction because Pringle failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that these defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over these defendants. See id. at 1076-77 (discussing requirements for specific personal jurisdiction); see also Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2017) (personal jurisdiction is improper if “the forum state was only implicated by the happenstance of [plaintiffs] residence”).

Pringles motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.

Pringles motion for an expedited ruling (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied as moot.

Defendants’ request for appellate attorneys fees and costs, set forth in the answering brief, is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (requiring a separate motion for fees and costs); Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 828 (9th Cir. 2009) (a request made in an appellate brief does not satisfy Rule 38).

AFFIRMED.