Allan G. Edwards, Jr. v. James M. Copenhaver

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLAN G. EDWARDS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES M. COPENHAVER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-17203
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00623-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
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) (“[D]omicile is
evaluated in terms of objective facts, and . . . statements of intent are entitled to
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17203 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --