NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTINE WONG, No. 15-15807
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05524-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELLEN ANDERSON, AKA The Harrison
Team; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Christine Wong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her action seeking specific performance of a
real estate purchase agreement. We review de novo. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox
*
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).
Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wong’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Wong did not present a federal question on the face of
her amended complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475
(1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded
complaint).
For the same reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Wong’s motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing her action. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wong’s action
without leave to amend. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298
(9th Cir. 1998) (leave to amend not required “where the amended complaint would
also be subject to dismissal”); see also Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992,
1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review).
We reject as without merit Wong’s contention that the district court
improperly dismissed the action without first holding a hearing. See Scholastic
Entm’t, Inc., 336 F.3d at 985 (“While a party is entitled to notice and an
2 15-15807
opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the
merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
(citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15807