MEMORANDUM **

John R. Nordblad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging state law foreclosure claims. *240 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nordblad’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Nordblad failed to allege any federal claim and both Nord-blad and at least one defendant are citizens of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). Because the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without prejudice. See Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without first holding a hearing. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-15 (“The Court may dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute.... ”); see also Delange v. Dutra Const. Co., Inc., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review of a district court’s interpretation and application of its local rules).

We reject as meritless Nordblad’s contention that the district court judge was biased.

AFFIRMED.