Mary E. Miller Hall v. Charlie F. Hall

24 F.3d 246 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. 93-15409. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 11, 1994. * Decided May 13, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Mary Miller Hall appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of her action arising out of her marital relationship with defendant Charlie Hall. 1 In her complaint, Hall sought damages for injuries she allegedly suffered during her relationship with the defendant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 The district court's determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction is a question of law which we review de novo. Bourassa v. Desrochers, 938 F.2d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir.1991). We review for clear error the district court's factual findings underlying this determination. Reebok Int'l v.…