Prometheus Development Co. v. Everest Properties

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM **

Thjs case is resubmitted as of August 8, goos

Plaintiffs-Appellants Prometheus Development Company and ^ Sanford Diller (Plaintiffs) appeal the dismissal of their su^ seeking an injunction against state coul't proceedings. Because the parties are f'arr|iliar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Although the district court erred in styling its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action pursuant to the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 22g3 ag one for lack of subjeet matter jurisdiction, 1 we will treat the district court,s decision ag baving converted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. See Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204 , 1206 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995) (treating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdic *213 tion as one for failure to state a claim); Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel & Elevator Operators Union, 453 F.2d 1018 , 1022 (9th Cir.1972) (same). “[A] party should not be bound at his peril to give the proper nomenclature for his motion. This would be a retreat to the strict common law. So long as he…