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)
22-55091•Curtis Jason Wendt-West v. State of Hawai’i, Department of Education
22-55091Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 27, 2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS JASON WENDT-WEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF HAWAI’I, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; and KATHLEEN DIMINO,
Complex Area Superintendent, in her official
capacity only,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55091
D.C. No. 5:21-cv-01336-JWH-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Curtis Jason Wendt-West appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his action alleging federal and state law
employment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
* 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
JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-55091
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). LNS Enters. LLC
v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852, 857 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wendt-West’s action for lack of
personal jurisdiction because Wendt-West failed to allege facts sufficient to
establish that defendants had such continuous and systematic contacts with
California to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related
contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction
over defendants. See id. at 858–59 (discussing requirements for general and
specific personal jurisdiction).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.