Brandi Shakia Smith v. GAIL CHASE, Chief Operating Officer

23-15208Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2 de abr. de 2024

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRANDI SHAKIA SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GAIL CHASE, Chief Operating Officer;
NICOLE BOSCO, Human Resources
Director; LINDA WILEY, Executive
Director; KIMBERLY ROMERO, Human
Resources Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15208
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00459-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Brandi Shakia Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
for lack of personal jurisdiction her action alleging employment discrimination and
* 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
APR 2 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15208
other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Smith’s action for lack of personal
jurisdiction because Smith did not allege facts sufficient to establish that
defendants Chase and Bosco had sufficient contacts with Arizona to provide the
court with either general or specific jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011) (“For an individual, the
paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile
. . . .”); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.
2004) (specific personal jurisdiction requires, among other things, that “the claim
must . . . arise[] out of or relate[] to the defendant’s forum-related activities”).
Smith’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.