Mary E. Miller Hall v. Charlie F. Hall

967 F.2d 586 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Mary E. Miller HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charlie F. HALL, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-15392. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 26, 1992. * Decided June 2, 1992. Before FARRIS, DAVID R. THOMPSON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Mary E. Miller Hall ("Miller) appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of her diversity action against Charlie F. Hall. The district court abstained from adjudicating the merits of Miller's action and dismissed the case because Miller's claims were closely related to issues affecting domestic relations. Miller contends that her claims are not related to her marital relationship with Hall, but rather are based in tort and contract law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse and remand. 3 "The domestic relations exception [to diversity jurisdiction] requires district courts to decline cases involving pure determinations…