Gregory C. Krug v. Paul T. Coleman Heiskell, Donelson, Bearman, Adams, Williams & Kirsch

9 F.3d 1552 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Gregory C. KRUG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul T. COLEMAN; Heiskell, Donelson, Bearman, Adams, Williams & Kirsch, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-55608. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 1, 1993. * Decided Nov. 8, 1993. Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Gregory Krug appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his libel action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990). We reverse and remand. 3 Krug filed a complaint against attorney Paul Coleman and the law firm of Heiskell, Donelson, Bearman, Adams, Williams & Kirsch for allegedly libelous statements. Krug asserted diversity…