NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SETH ABRAHAMS, No. 13-15889
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01006-JCS
Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior
District Judge.**
This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
complaint seeks declaratory relief regarding claims that had been previously
dismissed twice, and hence could not now create any justiciable controversy. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B); see Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d
1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining the “two dismissal rule”).
On appeal, the appellant argues that the action should not have been
dismissed because the complaint laid out an additional cause of action of qui tam
sufficient to sustain subject matter jurisdiction. A close examination of the
complaint reveals no such claim. This is the inevitable conclusion under even the
lenient standards of notice pleading, and such lenient standards are no longer
applicable. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2