NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACKSON PRYOR GROUP, a California No. 22-16899 limited liability company, D.C. No. 5:22-cv-00111-SVK Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MANUEL LIMA, as Trustees of the Trust established under Declaration dated January 13, 1994; SUSANNE LIMA, as Trustees of the Trust established under Declaration dated January 13, 1994,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan G. Van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2023** San Jose, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and PAEZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jackson Pryor Group brings a narrow appeal, challenging the dismissal of its

* 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). Complaint only to the extent the dismissal was on the merits rather than for lack of

jurisdiction. Because there is no error in the district court’s dismissal order, we

affirm.

As Jackson Pryor Group itself argues, the district court was “crystal clear”

that it was declining to exercise jurisdiction. In dismissing under American

International Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 843 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1988), the district court appropriately stated that it was

applying “a narrow exception to the [c]ourt’s duty to exercise its jurisdiction.”

Jackson Pryor argues that the district court should have clarified that this

was not a decision on the merits that would bind a state court. But no further

clarification from the district court was needed. See Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc.,

49 F.4th 1308, 1314 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “a federal court’s pre-merits

determination to withhold relief is binding on other federal courts, but not on

courts outside the federal system that might properly exercise their own

jurisdiction over the claim”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that a dismissal

“for lack of jurisdiction” generally does not “operate[] as an adjudication on the

merits”).

AFFIRMED.

2