employees and board members, were not state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court also denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm on alternative grounds supported by the record: summary judgment. See Ventura Mobilehome Communities Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1051 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004). The color of law requirement is an element of a § 1983 claim. See, e.g., Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997). Failure to establish a threshold fact does not deprive federal courts of “authority to adjudicate the claim in suit.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 511, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006); see also York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450, 453 (9th Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>). Defendants moved for both dismissal and
holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that allegations of a civil rights violation are enough to establish district court jurisdiction whether or not appellant succeeded in stating such a claim holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction