
    Michael WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DESERT BERMUDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-56290.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 9, 2013.
    Filed May 9, 2013.
    Mark Eisenberg, Eisenberg Law Firm, APC, Newport Beach, CA, Laura Milidon-is Knox-Raphael, The Knox-Raphael Law Firm, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Douglas J. Pahl, Kern & Wooley LLP, Douglas C. Griffith, Law Office of Douglas C. Griffith, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: REINHARDT and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

This case arises out of a plane crash that killed a flight instructor and badly injured the student pilot, Michael Webb. Desert Bermuda Development Corporation owned the airport.

Webb sued Desert Bermuda in California state court, alleging a state-law premises liability claim. The case was removed to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Desert Bermuda. We vacate that decision because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Webb did not challenge the district court’s decision to not remand this case to state court, but we must sua sponte address our subject matter jurisdiction if it appears to be lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.2004).

This case was removed on the basis of the complete preemption doctrine. See Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1107 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000). The FAA does not create a federal cause of action for personal injury suits. Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, 555 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Consequently, the complete preemption doctrine is inapplicable here and does not provide a basis for removal. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 9, 123 S.Ct. 2058, 156 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003)).

We vacate the district court’s disposition and remand with instructions that the district court remand this case to state court. Because we vacate for lack of jurisdiction, we note that the state court will not be bound by the district court’s determinations regarding preemption and California premises liability.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     