Subramanian v. Crystal Decisions, Inc., 111512 FED9, 10-15032

Docket Nº:10-15032
Party Name:MANI SUBRAMANIAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRYSTAL DECISIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 15, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MANI SUBRAMANIAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL DECISIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 15, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted July 19, 2012[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 5:03-cv-04578-RMW for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Mani Subramanian appeals pro se the district court judgment granting appellees' motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to amend or alter the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly afforded comity to the judgment of the English court because Subramanian failed to establish that the procedures afforded him by the English court were deficient or fundamentally unfair. British Midland Airways Ltd. v. Int'l Travel Inc., 497 F.2d 869, 870-71 (9th Cir. 1974). To permit Subramanian to pursue litigation here in violation of negotiated forum-selection clauses would frustrate a policy of United States courts. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 629-31 (1985); E & J Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores, S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2006); Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2006).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Subramanian's motion to amend or alter the judgment because...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP