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:T4aa,MEMORANDUM Sukit Kumvachirapitag appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 , 778 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 , 126 S.Ct. 1235 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party”); Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e1,

MEMORANDUM

Sukit Kumvachirapitag appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 , 778 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 , 126 S.Ct. 1235 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party”); Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.