Exact Property & Casualty Company v. Broan-NuTone, LLC

Filing 13

ORDER DISCHARGING 11 Order to Show Cause re Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 23, 2018. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

EXACT PROPERTY & CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
TO SHOW CAUSE RE JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 11, 12

10
11

Case No. 17-cv-06770-JSW

BROAN-NUTONE, LLC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On November 24, 2017, Defendant removed this action from Alameda County Superior

14

Court and asserted that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action. Defendant alleges that

15

its sole member is Nortek, Inc. a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Rhode

16

Island. (Notice of Removal, ¶ 8.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of Oregon.

17

According to the complaint, Plaintiff is “a corporation licensed and properly doing business in

18

Oregon.” (Compl. ¶ 1.) Because the Court found the allegations regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship

19

deficient, it issued an Order directing Defendant to show cause why jurisdiction exists. On

20

January 19, 2018, Defendant filed a timely response to that Order to Show Cause.

21

“A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it

22

has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of

23

business[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place of business is determined by

24

the “‘nerve center’” test. Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hertz Corp.

25

v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010)). Thus, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation’s

26

principal place of business ‘refer[s] to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and

27

coordinate the corporation’s activities.’” Id. (quoting Hertz, 559 U.S. at 92-93). This will usually

28

be “‘the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters -- provided that the headquarters is

1
2

the actual cente of directio control, and coordina
e
er
on,
a
ation[.]’” Id (quoting H
d.
Hertz, 559 U. at 93).
.S.
In its re
esponse to th Order to Show Cause, Defendant has proffere sufficient evidence to
he
S
,
ed

3

ow
c
aintiff is a ci
itizen of Cali
ifornia and t Plaintiff is neither a citizen of
that
f
sho that the corporate Pla

4

Rh
hode Island or Delaware. (See gener
o
rally Dkt. No 12-1, Decl
o.
laration of O
Omar Parra.) Therefore,

5

the Court concludes all par
e
rties are dive and that the amount in controversy satisfies the
erse
t
t

6

jurisdictional th
hreshold.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
ated: January 23, 2018
y
Da
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

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