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 contends that Crown Bay admitted to being a citizen of Florida, but Crown Bay actually denied Mala's allegation. Absent evidence that the parties were diverse, we are left with Mala's allegations. Allegations are insufficient attrial. And they are especially insufficient on appeal, where we review the District 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 Floridamuch 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 jurytrial 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 presenceor lackof diversity of citizenship affect a lawsuit? 3. What did the court conclude with respect to the parties' diversity of citizenship in this case?