MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Gaven Hill (“Hill”) originally filed this suit against his sister Kristan Hill-Love (“Hill-Love”) in state court, alleging damages exceeding $100,000 for conversion, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and exemplary (punitive) damages. Hill-Love removed this action to federal court based on diversity. 1 The district court eventually granted summary judgment to Hill-Love because Hill failed to meet any of the federal court’s discovery deadlines or deadlines for disclosure of witnesses and thus had no evidence that could be presented at trial to support his claims. We affirm.

There was no error in denying Hill’s motion to remand to state court. The district court properly ignored Hill’s belated attempt to avoid federal jurisdiction and adhered to this circuit’s longstanding rule that the “propriety of removal is determined solely on the basis of the pleadings filed in state court,” Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006), as Hill explicitly sought damages in excess of $75,000 in his state court complaint. See also Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Events occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.”) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-90, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938)).

Nor was there any error in granting Hill-Love’s motion for summary judgment. Hill utterly failed to comply with pretrial scheduling orders regarding discovery and disclosure of witnesses, and he did not bear his burden of establishing that such failure was “substantially justified” or “harmless.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). Hill thus had no admissible evidence to create an issue of material fact for trial. See Hoffman v. Constr. Protective Servs., 541 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that Rule 37 sanctions are appropriate even if a litigant’s entire cause of action falls). Hill has also failed to meet his burden of establishing that res judicata or collateral estoppel would apply to any of the issues or claims presented in this action. See Lucido v.Super. Ct., 51 Cal.3d *607 335, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767, 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1990); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297, 299 (2002).

AFFIRMED.