
    Sara BATTERHAM; Colin Batterham, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KHALSA RESORTS, INC.; Surat Singh, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15135.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2014.
    Sara Batterham, Verdi, NV, pro se.
    Colin Batterham, Verdi, NV, pro se.
    
      Donald John Hensel, Esquire, Bartell & Hensel, Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sara and Colin Batterham appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the Batterhams’ action alleging violations of state law in connection with their employment at a motel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir.2012), and affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Batterhams’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity between the parties at the time the action was commenced and there was no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 574, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) (“[W]here there is no change of party, a jurisdiction depending on the condition of the party is governed by that condition, as it was at the commencement of the suit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir.2008) (“[I]n order for a state law claim to provide a basis for federal jurisdiction, the state claim must turn on substantial questions of federal law, and really and substantially involv[e] a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of [federal] law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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