NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIVEK SHAH, No. 23-55799 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-03914-GW-AGR v. MEMORANDUM* BLUEGROUND US, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2025** Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Vivek Shah appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his diversity action alleging discrimination under state law on the basis of his criminal record. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v.

* 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).

Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shah’s action because Shah failed to satisfy his burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth requirements for establishing diversity jurisdiction); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (defining “domicile” for purposes of diversity of citizenship and explaining that a plaintiff’s failure to establish a state of citizenship is fatal to an assertion of diversity jurisdiction).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55799