or implied.” (citing NRS § 42.005; emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted)). However, the district court abused its discretion in denying Mellor’s motion for leave to amend because it is not clear that amendment would be futile. See AE, 666 F.3d at 636 (setting forth the bases for denial of amendment); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that a pro se plaintiff can correct the defect in the pleading). Accordingly, we reverse the-judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. On remand, the district court should make a specific finding that the parties are diverse. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). We do not consider arguments raised for the
recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen holding workers compensation insurer deemed by section 1332c to be citizen of state of which insured is citizen in suit brought by insureds injured employee holding state immune from suit brought by its own citizens holding that an llc is a citizen of every state of which its ownersmembers are citizens