22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T511,MEMORANDUM Jacqueline Simonelli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her takings action arising out of the City of Car-mel-by-the-Sea’s approval of a development next to Simonelli’s property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Colwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Simonelli’s action as unripe because Simonelli had not been denied compensation through any state court procedures. See Williamson Cnty. of Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 175 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985); see also San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1101-02 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that takings claims are unripe until the plaintiff has sought and been denied compensation through the state’s procedures, and that abstention is “irrelevant” since there are no claims from which to abstain). The City’s requests to dismiss the appeal, and to strike Simonelli’s declaration, presented in its answering brief, are denied. AFFIRMED. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).24:T543,

MEMORANDUM

Jacqueline Simonelli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her takings action arising out of the City of Car-mel-by-the-Sea’s approval of a development next to Simonelli’s property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Colwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Simonelli’s action as unripe because Simonelli had not been denied compensation through any state court procedures. See Williamson Cnty. of Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 175 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985); see also San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1101-02 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that takings claims are unripe until the plaintiff has sought and been denied compensation through the state’s procedures, and that abstention is “irrelevant” since there are no claims from which to abstain).

The City’s requests to dismiss the appeal, and to strike Simonelli’s declaration, presented in its answering brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).