U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2020

Gabriel Bristol v. Elizabeth Hughes

Gabriel Bristol v. Elizabeth Hughes
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 11, 2020

Gabriel Bristol v. Elizabeth Hughes

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL M. BRISTOL, No. 18-16385 Plaintiff-counter- D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00705-JCM- defendant-Appellee, CWH v. MEMORANDUM* ELIZABETH JOAN HUGHES, Individually and as Trustee of the Scorpio Trust dated January 28, 2015, Defendant-counter-claimant- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 3, 2020** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Elizabeth Joan Hughes appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of diversity jurisdiction her counterclaims in Gabriel M. Bristol’s action

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). alleging contract claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Hughes’s counterclaims on the basis of Hughes’s insufficient allegations to establish complete diversity between the parties. However, it is not clear on review that the defective allegations of jurisdiction in Hughes’s countercomplaint could not have been cured by amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (permitting amendment of defective allegations of jurisdiction); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to Hughes’s counterclaims, and remand for the district court to provide Hughes with an opportunity to amend her countercomplaint.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

2 18-16385

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.