FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARA BATTERHAM; COLIN No. 13-15135
BATTERHAM,
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00527-LRH-
Plaintiffs - Appellants, WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KHALSA RESORTS, INC.; SURAT
SINGH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sara and Colin Batterham appeal pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the Batterhams’ action alleging
violations of state law in connection with their employment at a motel. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d
846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012), and affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Batterhams’ action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity between the
parties at the time the action was commenced and there was no basis for
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp.,
L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 574 (2004) (“[W]here there is no change of party, a jurisdiction
depending on the condition of the party is governed by that condition, as it was at
the commencement of the suit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
see also Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage
Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Geological Formation, 524
F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]n order for a state law claim to provide a basis
for federal jurisdiction, the state claim must turn on substantial questions of federal
law, and really and substantially involv[e] a dispute or controversy respecting the
validity, construction or effect of [federal] law.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15135