PHILLIP ALEXANDER V. PAUL BROWN FARMERS INSURANCE, No. 17-16741 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILLIP ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16741 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01623-APG-PAL v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL BROWN FARMERS INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. The order to show cause (Docket Entry No. 2) is discharged. Phillip Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking damages related to an automobile accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We review de novo, Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Alexander’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Alexander failed to allege facts sufficient to show that there is complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Naffe, 789 F.3d at 1039 (setting forth elements of diversity jurisdiction). We reject as without merit Alexander’s contentions regarding default judgment. AFFIRMED. 2 17-16741

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.