716 Fed.Appx. 646 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-55865, Lam v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.
|Citation:||716 Fed.Appx. 646|
|Party Name:||Lina LAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., AKA Liberty Mutual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Lina Lam, Pro Se John Terence Lupton, Attorney, Kelley K. Beck, Esquire, Attorney, Lindahl Beck LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. Tyrone Toczauer, Attorney, La Follette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Multiple Concret...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 23, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted March 13, 2018 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00510-RGK-DTB
Lina Lam, Pro Se
John Terence Lupton, Attorney, Kelley K. Beck, Esquire, Attorney, Lindahl Beck LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.
Tyrone Toczauer, Attorney, La Follette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Multiple Concrete, Inc.
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Lina Lam appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her diversity action arising from an automobile accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal based on improper venue); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lams claims against Martin and Multiple Concrete, Inc. because Lam failed to establish that these defendants reside in the Central District of California or that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [her] claim[s]" occurred there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought).
The district court properly dismissed Lams claims against LM General Insurance Company (erroneously sued as Liberty Mutual, Inc.) because Lam failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP