Hall

Hall v. Schaefer

Good Law
315 F. App'x 622
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 2, 2009No. 07-15341California354 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert W. Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and from several underlying orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Rule 41(b), Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 986 (9th Cir.1999), and we review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court dismissed the first amended complaint for lack of standing and granted thirty days leave to amend. When Hall failed to amend, the district court dismissed the action. We construe the district court’s dismissal as a dismissal under Rule 12(b) rather than a sanction under Rule 41(b).

To the extent that Hall sought relief concerning defendants’ imposition of the reserve assessment, we conclude that he had Article III standing because defendants allegedly demanded payment from him and he paid the assessment.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.