Raymond Vela v. Norb Murphy;

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).
IL/RESEARCH
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND VELA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORB MURPHY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-17178
D.C. No. CV-04-00491-LRH/VPC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Vela appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
with prejudice his diversity action challenging State Farm Life Insurance
FILED
JAN 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IL/RESEARCH 2
Company, Inc.’s (“State Farm” ) refusal to pay a claim. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Townsel v.
Contra Costa County, Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action
because Vela did not properly serve State Farm under either California or Nevada
law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30 (requiring that service by mail be
accompanied by a notice and acknowledgment of service); § 416.10 (requiring that
personal service on a corporation be on its designated agent for service of process
or on a corporate officer or other specified principal); Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1),
4(d)(2) (requiring service on an in-state officer or other authorized individual or on
the Nevada Secretary of State). Moreover, Vela failed to carry his burden under
federal law to prove that he delivered a copy of the summons and the complaint to
an individual authorized to receive it on State Farm’s behalf under Rule 4(h)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Butcher’s Union Local 498, United
Food and Commercial Workers v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538 (9th
Cir. 1986) (explaining that plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that proper
service was effected).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --