Pia Beaty v. Santa Rosa III Hoa

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Pia D. Beaty appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state laws and the district court’s subsequent award of attorney’s fees to defendant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177 , 1181 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion an award of attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 709 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm as to the judgment and vacate as to the attorney’s fees.

In No. 13-17499, the district court properly dismissed Beaty’s complaint for failure to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 654, 662 (9th Cir.2004) (there is no jurisdiction where a claim “appear[s] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646 , 664 (9th Cir.2002). (if a…