United States v. 2020-03-11 | 18-16385 | GABRIEL BRISTOL V. ELIZABETH HUGHES | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL M. BRISTOL,

Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee,

v.

ELIZABETH JOAN HUGHES, Individually
and as Trustee of the Scorpio Trust dated
January 28, 2015,

Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellant.

No. 18-16385

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00705-JCM-
CWH

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Elizabeth Joan Hughes appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for lack of diversity jurisdiction her counterclaims in Gabriel M. Bristol’s action

*
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

MAR 11 2020

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

2 18-16385
alleging contract claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir.
2015). We vacate and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Hughes’s counterclaims on the basis of
Hughes’s insufficient allegations to establish complete diversity between the
parties. However, it is not clear on review that the defective allegations of
jurisdiction in Hughes’s countercomplaint could not have been cured by
amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (permitting amendment of defective allegations
of jurisdiction); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo
review, that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to Hughes’s counterclaims, and
remand for the district court to provide Hughes with an opportunity to amend her
countercomplaint.
VACATED AND REMANDED.