Friedman

*679 MEMORANDUM ***

Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Corporation, and Nathaniel J. Friedman, Esq. (collectively “Friedman”) appeal from the dismissal of his Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) case for tortious interference with a business relationship and prospective economic advantage. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Friedman’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is barred by the two-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (b). See Burns v. United States, 764 F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that compliance with the statute of limitations in a suit under the FTCA is jurisdictional).

Friedman’s FTCA claim for tortious interference with a business relationship and prospective economic advantage accrued when he became aware of “both his injury and its cause.” See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 122-23 , 100 S.Ct. 352 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979) (holding that a claim under the…