MEMORANDUM **
Brian Evans appeals pro se from the district courts 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 Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Evanss 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 courts diversity jurisdiction always bears the burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Evanss 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 Evanss contentions that the district court was biased against him as a pro se litigant.
AFFIRMED.