Karen C. Han v. Yangrai Cho

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAREN C. HAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

YANGRAI CHO,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16073

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00277-HG-KJM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Karen C. Han appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her
diversity action alleging fraud and civil conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th

*
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).
FILED

MAY 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16073
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Han’s action for lack of personal
jurisdiction because Han failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that defendant
Cho had continuous and systematic contacts with Hawaii to establish general
personal jurisdiction, or sufficient minimum contacts with Hawaii to provide the
court with specific personal jurisdiction over Cho. See CollegeSource, Inc., 653
F.3d at 1074-76 (discussing requirements for general and specific personal
jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Han’s motion for
reconsideration because Han failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist.
No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Han’s request for
jurisdictional discovery because Han failed to demonstrate that the requested
discovery would have yielded “jurisdictionally relevant facts.” Boschetto v.
Hansing, 529 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that the denial of a request for jurisdictional discovery “based on little
more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts [is] not an
abuse of discretion”).

3 19-16073
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Han’s complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may deny leave
to amend if amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.