Hollis v. Science Applications Intern. Corp.

92 F.3d 1192 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. J. Mark HOLLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, Plaintiff, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Science Applications International Technology, a division of Science Applications International Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-55128. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 3, 1996. Decided July 26, 1996. Before: WIGGINS, THOMPSON, TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 We review de novo the district court's jurisdictional determination. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 81 F.3d 1465, 1472 (9th Cir.1996). However, we accept the factual findings underlying such determination unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Hollis bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, and all other essential elements of his claim, by a preponderance of the evidence. 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (c); Hagood, 81 F.3d at 1472 . 3 We reverse the district court's…