Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. D.C. No. CV-93-00192-JWS. John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Before: Beezer, Kozinski, and Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges
Jack Ryfeul appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(b)(2). We have jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's dismissal de novo, Steel v. United States, 813 F.2d 1545, 1548 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
Ryfeul contends that the district court erred in dismissing his action for lack of personal jurisdiction because the Nevada defendants had sufficient contacts with the State of Alaska to justify litigation in that forum.*fn1 We disagree. Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is determined by a three prong test: (1) does the nonresident defendant have some connection with the forum state; (2) does the claim arises out of defendant's forum related activities; and (3) is the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977).
Here, the facts as alleged by Ryfeul do not support his claim that the district court had personal jurisdiction.*fn2 Ryfeul alleged that after staying at the Mirage, he began to receive invitations to special promotional events at the Mirage hotel in Nevada. In response to one of these letters, he claims he contracted with the Mirage hotel to provide hotel services in Las Vegas, Nevada. He asserts that he or his agent telephoned the Mirage hotel from Alaska at least twice to confirm the arrangements. A few days after he checked into the hotel, the Mirage allegedly breached this contract. In support of its motion to dismiss, the Mirage defendants introduced affidavits that the Mirage does not do business in Alaska nor does its advertising target Alaska residents.*fn3 In an affidavit, the Las Vegas Police defendants assert that they do not have any relevant ties to Alaska.*fn4
Because all the salient events took place in Nevada, and because all the witnesses with the exception of Ryfeul himself, live and work in Nevada, we agree with the district court that it would be unreasonable to force Nevada defendants with such de minimis contacts with Alaska to defend there against claims arising out of an alleged breach of a contract claim for services to be performed exclusively in Nevada.*fn5
Because Ryfeul failed to establish personal jurisdiction, we affirm.*fn6 See Data Disc, 577 F.2d at 1287; see also Breeland, 792 F.2d at 926.