NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT J. KULICK, No. 18-56000
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05718-PA-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEISURE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION,
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Robert J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging civil rights violations and a state law claim arising from state
court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
*
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).
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Kulick’s action is a “de facto appeal”
of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably
intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker–Feldman bars de
facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably
intertwined” with the state court decision).
To the extent Kulick attempted to plead a state law defamation claim against
Leisure Valley Association, Inc., the district court properly dismissed Kulick’s
claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Kulick failed to allege any
violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir.
2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-56000