
    Keven HUTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ME CAPITAL LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15101
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 16, 2017
    Keven Hutson, Pro Se
    Stephen Brower, Attorney, Brentwood Law Group, PLLC, Tempe, AZ, Joshua T. Greer, Esquire, Attorney, Moyes Sellers & Hendricks, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keven Hutson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal claims arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hutson’s action without prejudice after Hutson failed to comply with the district court’s orders regarding preparation for the pre-trial conference, and failed to appear at the pretrial conference, despite being warned that failure to comply with court orders may result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hutson’s motion for reconsideration because Hutson failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

We reject as meritless Hutson’s contentions that the district court was required to first address the issue of personal jurisdiction and had no authority to act until service was complete.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     