Jorge L. Rubio v. Rush Card; the Bancorp Bank

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE L. RUBIO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RUSH CARD; THE BANCORP BANK,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16795
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01470-AWI-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California civil detainee Jorge L. Rubio appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising
out of defendants’ alleged refusal to disburse funds from a pre-paid debit card. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v.
FILED
JUL 02 2015
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 3 --

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the
record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Rubio’s state law claims was not an abuse of discretion in the
absence of any cognizable federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims upon
the dismissal of the federal claims); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth
requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction); Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-
Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining the legal certainty
standard for the amount-in-controversy requirement); cf. Zhang v. Superior Court,
304 P.3d 163, 167 (Cal. 2013) (under California’s Unfair Competition Law, a
private plaintiff’s relief is generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution).
We do not consider Rubio’s federal claims because Rubio did not present
any discernible arguments in his opening brief regarding the dismissal of his
federal claims. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.
2011) (pro se appellant waived issue not supported by argument in opening brief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rubio’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (standard of review).
2 14-16795

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3 14-16795

-- 3 of 3 --