Brian Evans v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN EVANS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES
LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15846
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00111-JAO-RT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Brian Evans appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging state law claims arising out of a dispute with his brokerage. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Prather v. AT&T, Inc., 847 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15846
Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Evans’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Evans failed to meet the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (conferring jurisdiction on district courts
where the plaintiff alleges that the parties are completely diverse and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000); see also NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d
606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016) (for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “with respect to a
limited liability company, the citizenship of all of the members must be pled”;
“[t]he party seeking to invoke the district court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears
the burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Evans’s request for
jurisdictional discovery because Evans failed to demonstrate that the requested
discovery was “based on little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally
relevant facts.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting
forth standard of review).
We reject as unsupported by the record Evans’s contentions that the district
court was biased against him as a pro se litigant.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --