Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0288-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Allan G. EDWARDS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. COPENHAVER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17203.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
    Allan G. Edwards, Jr., Wilton Center, NH, pro se.
    James M. Copenhaver, Elko, NV, pro se.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Allan G. Edwards, Jr., (“Edwards”) failed to establish that he was domiciled in a state diverse from defendant. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1986) (“[DJomicile is evaluated in terms of objective facts, and ... statements of intent are entitled to little weight when in conflict with facts.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.2001) (“the party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof’). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Edwards’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Edwards’s motion to file an addendum to his reply brief is granted.

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