Cottrell v. Cordis Corporation et al

Filing 48

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY. Supplemental Responses due by 11/14/2016. Replies due by 11/21/2016. Motion Hearing set for 12/2/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/3/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DEANNA COTTRELL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02500-JSW

v.
CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND
GRANTING REQUEST FOR
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 37

12
13

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to remand or, in the alternative, for

14

leave to pursue jurisdictional discovery, filed by Plaintiff. The Court has considered the parties’

15

papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and the Court finds that jurisdictional

16

discovery on the location of Cordis Corporation’s principal place of business is warranted. The

17

Court CONTINUES the hearing scheduled for August 12, 2016 to December 2, 2016.

18

Plaintiff filed this action against Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”) and others in the Superior

19

Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. On May 9, 2016, Cordis removed the action

20

and asserted that the Court has diversity jurisdiction. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by

21

Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

22

States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the

23

district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such

24

action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation

25

Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983). However, “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis

26

of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in

27

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is

28

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

At any time before judgment, if it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

1
2

jurisdiction over a case previously removed from state court, the case must be remanded. 28

3

U.S.C. 1447(c). On a motion to remand, the scope of the removal statute is strictly construed.

4

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing federal

5

jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal. Id. If “challenged on

6

allegations of jurisdictional facts, the parties must support their allegations by competent proof.”

7

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 97 (2010).
Cordis removed the case solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction

8

exists where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different

10

states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is undisputed that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

also is undisputed that Plaintiff is a citizen of West Virginia. A corporation is “deemed to be a

12

citizen of every State … by which it has been incorporated and of the State … where it has its

13

principal place of business[.]” Id. § 1332(b). It is undisputed that Cordis was incorporated in

14

Florida. However, the parties dispute where Cordis’ principal place of business is located.1
The Supreme Court has held that a corporation’s principal place of business is the place

15
16

“where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities … [a]nd

17

in practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters –

18

provided that the headquarters is the actual enter of direction, control and coordination.” Hertz

19

Corp., 559 U.S. at 92-93.
In support of its Notice of Removal, and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand,

20
21

Cordis relies on declaration from Adam Laponis, its Vice President of Finance, who signed his

22

declaration in Fremont, California. (Notice of Removal, Ex. B (Declaration of Adam Laponis

23

(“Laponis Decl.”).) Mr. Laponis attests that, in 2015, Cardinal Health, Inc. acquired Cordis and

24

“placed the direction, control and coordination of Cordis’ activities, and majority of its officers, in

25

Dublin, Ohio, where Cardinal Health is located. Cordis’ principal place of business is in Dublin

26

Ohio.” (Laponis Decl. ¶ 4.) Mr. Laponis also attests that thirteen of Cordis’ officers work in

27
1

28

It is undisputed that none of the other named Defendants are citizens of California or of
West Virginia.
2

1

Dublin, Ohio, including its highest ranking officer, and only two work in the Fremont location.

2

(Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) Mr. Laponis does not, however, identify those officers or their titles. He does,

3

however, attest that “decisions regarding the integration of Cordis; strategic vision; financial

4

controls and budgeting; hiring and firing of high-level employees; the setting of commercial ‘go-

5

to-market’ strategies; customer relations; manufacturing; distribution; procurement; and regulatory

6

affairs” are made in Dublin, Ohio. (Id., ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff, in turn, has put forth evidence that Cordis and Cardinal Health publicly represent

7
8

that Cordis’ “North American operations are based out of the San Francisco Bay Area….”

9

(Declaration of Richard S. Lewis (“Lewis Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. B-C.) In addition, Plaintiff has put
forth evidence that suggests that Cordis’ Corporation Communications department is located in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the Bay Area, and that senior positions for Global Marketing and Strategy are based in Fremont,

12

California. (Lewis Decl., ¶¶ 2, 7, Exs. A, F.)
The Court concludes that there are controverted facts that bear on the issue of where

13
14

Cordis’ principal place of business is located and that jurisdictional discovery is warranted in this

15

case. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1020); see also Wells Fargo & Co.

16

v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the Court

17

GRANTS Plaintiff’s alternative request for limited and targeted jurisdictional discovery, which

18

may include written discovery requests and one (1) 30(b)(6) deposition. The parties shall

19

complete that discovery by October 7, 2016. If disputes arise over the scope of the discovery, the

20

parties shall submit a joint letter brief in accordance with this Court’s Civil Standing Orders

21

outlining the nature of the dispute. If the parties require additional time to complete jurisdictional

22

discovery, they may submit a request to the Court, either in the form of a stipulation or, if

23

disputed, an administrative motion to extend that deadline, and the other deadlines set by this

24

Order.

25
26

By no later than October 28, 2016, Plaintiff shall either file a notice withdrawing her
motion to remand or file a supplemental brief in support of that motion. If Plaintiff maintains that

27
28
3

1

the case should be remande Cordis sh file a su
e
d
ed,
hall
upplemental o
opposition b Novembe 14, 20162,
by
er

2

and Plaintiff sh file a rep by Novem
d
hall
ply
mber 21, 20 16. The Cou shall hea the motion on
urt
ar
n

3

De
ecember 2, 2016. If the Court finds the motion s
C
t
suitable for d
disposition w
without oral a
argument, it

4

wil notify the parties in ad
ll
dvance of the hearing dat
e
te.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

5
6

Da
ated: August 3, 2016
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Co sets that date to acco
ourt
ount for the V
Veteran’s Da holiday.
ay
4