EDWIN RITTER JONAS, III, Esquire v. Emilie Richardson;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN RITTER JONAS, III, Esquire,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EMILIE RICHARDSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35282
D.C. No. 9:13-cv-00030-DLC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Ritter Jonas, III, Esq., appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his diversity action alleging defamation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los
Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
FILED
MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jonas failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the newspaper article at
issue was false. See Shoen v. Shoen, 48 F.3d 412, 417 (9th Cir. 1995)
(constitutional elements of defamation); Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Wolf Point v.
Moe Motor Co., 813 P.2d 400, 404 (Mont. 1991) (“[T]ruth is a complete defense to
a claim of defamation.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Jonas’s filings
submitted in violation of local rules. See United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108,
1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jonas’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d) motion because Jonas failed to show how allowing additional
discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & County
of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of
review).
We reject as without merit Jonas’s contentions relating to the district court’s
denial of Jonas’s request for judicial notice and for an oral hearing regarding his
objection to other judicially noticeable documents.
AFFIRMED.
14-35282 2

-- 2 of 2 --