MEMORANDUM **

James Aggrey-Kweggyir Arunga and Doreen H. Lee appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because plaintiffs have alleged neither a federal question, nor that there is complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction, a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (§ 1332 applies only when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”).

Appellants remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.