MEMORANDUM **

In these related appeals, George E. Barton appeals pro se from the district court’s *691 judgment dismissing his diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the exercise of specific jurisdiction over defendants would not be reasonable because the relevant factors weigh strongly against such a finding. See Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487-90 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant factors).

The district court also properly concluded that defendants were not subject to general jurisdiction in Washington because defendants did not engage in “the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts that approximate physical presence.” Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Barton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.