The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-15237•Arjuna C. Fernando v. Manu Sareen;
16-15237Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 28, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARJUNA C. FERNANDO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MANU SAREEN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-15237
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03039-JD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 27, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arjuna C. Fernando appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his action against Danish child welfare
officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
FILED
JUN 28 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 --
Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1128
(9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fernando’s action for lack of personal
jurisdiction because Fernando failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that
appellees have “continuous and systematic” contacts with California that
“approximate physical presence,” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374
F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
(general jurisdiction), or that his claims arose out of or relate to appellees’ forum-
related activities, id. at 802 (specific jurisdiction).
Fernando’s June 13, 2016 emergency motion for an injunction pending
appeal is denied as moot.
Fernando’s May 23, 2016 “notification of a threat to plaintiff-appellant from
defendants-appellees” and request for review is denied.
Appellees’ June 8, 2016 motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38 is denied.
Fernando’s June 27, 2016 motion to strike Docket Entry No. 19-2 is granted.
The Clerk shall remove Docket Entry No. 19-2 from the docket.
AFFIRMED.
16-15237 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.