Anibal Silva v. Cynthia Gonzales

MEMORANDUM

Aníbal Silva and Ramon Silva-Reyes appeal pro se from the district court’s judg ment dismissing their action alleging violations of federal, state, and international law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action for improper venue because no defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District of California, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1), and no “part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” there, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2).

The district court properly determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Nicaraguan defendants because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the Nicaraguan defendants have “continuous and systematic” contacts with California that “approximate physical presence,” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (general jurisdiction), or that their claims arose out of or relate to the Nicaraguan defendants’ forum-related activities, id. at 802 (specific jurisdiction).…