Carolan

MEMORANDUM **

In Appeal No. 03-35578, Michael J. Carolan appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his actions against defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. In Appeal Nos. 03-35813 and OS-35819, Carolan appeals the district court’s orders granting defendants’ motion for costs and attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, see Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.2001), and the legal question of whether the district court had authority to grant costs and attorneys’ fees, see United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir.1999). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of discovery. See Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Invest., Inc., 788 F.2d 535 , 540 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that an exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional *194 notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington,…