Amerault

Amerault v. Intelcom Support Services, Inc.

Good Law
16 F. App'x 724
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 2001No. 00-15420; D.C. No. CV-99-00098-ARMCalifornia1,144 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Amerault brought suit in district court against his former employer, Intel-com Support Services, Inc., and his employer’s insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, alleging that they had failed properly to provide him with the medical benefits to which he is entitled under the Guam Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA), 22 G.C.A. §§ 9101-9145. 1 The district court concluded that the WCA required Amerault to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit in court. Finding that Amerault had failed to do so, the district court dismissed Amerault’s action with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to determine whether we have jurisdiction.

In his complaint, Amerault stated that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . A party who invokes the power of a federal court bears the burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam). “The essential elements of diversity jurisdiction, including the diverse residence of all parties, must be affirmatively alleged in the pleadings.” Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.