30 U N I T O N E The Foundations


Mala argues that the District Court had both admiralty and diversity jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the court certainly had admiralty jurisdic–tion. The alleged tort occurred on navigable water and bore a substantial connection to maritime activity.The grounds for diversity jurisdiction are less certain. District courts have jurisdiction only if the parties are completely diverse. This means that no plaintiff may have the same state or territorial citizen–ship as any defendant. The parties agree that Mala was a citizen of the Virgin Islands. [Emphasis added.]Unfortunately for Mala, the District Court concluded that Crown Bay also was a citizen of the Virgin Islands. Mala rejects this conclusion.Mala bears the burden of proving that the District Court had diversity jurisdiction. Mala failed to meet that burden because he did not offer evidence that Crown Bay was anything other than a citizen of the Virgin Islands. Mala con–tends that Crown Bay admitted to being a citizen of Florida, but Crown Bay actu–ally denied Mala’s allegation.Absent evidence that the parties were diverse, we are left with Mala’s allegations. Allegations are insufficient at trial. And they are especially insufficient on appeal, where we review the District on appeal, where we review the District on appeal Court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. Under this standard, we will not reverse unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that Crown Bay was in fact a citizen of Florida. Mala has not presented any credible evidence that Crown Bay was a citizen of Florida—much less evidence that would leave us with the requisite firm conviction. [Emphasis added.]
* * * Accordingly, the parties were not diverse and Mala does not have a jury-trial right.* * * *
* * * For these reasons we will affirm the District Court’s judgment

Legal Reasoning Questions
1. What is “diversity of citizenship”?
2. How does the presence—or lack—of diversity of citizenship affect a lawsuit?
3. What did the court conclude with respect to the parties’ diversity of citizenship in this case?