Hasbun et al v. Whitney Bank
Filing
31
ORDER & REASONS that the Plaintiffs' 9 Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 10/10/18. (dno)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HASBUN ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-4018
WHITNEY BANK
SECTION "L" (1)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. R. Doc. 9. Defendant opposes. R. Doc.
14. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of allegedly unauthorized disbursements from Plaintiffs’ accounts
with Defendant Hancock Whitney Bank (“Hancock”). Plaintiffs, citizens of a foreign state
(Honduras) and Texas, sued Hancock in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Hancock
removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The parties are clearly diverse, but Plaintiffs
contend that Hancock’s principal place of business is in Louisiana, and this precludes removal on
the basis of diversity of citizenship.
To put this matter in perspective, a brief review of Hancock’s history is helpful. Hancock
Bank was incorporated in Mississippi in 1899, with its principal place of business in Bay St. Louis,
Mississippi and later in Gulfport, Mississippi. Its parent company, Hancock Holding Company,
also incorporated in Mississippi, has its principal place of business in Gulfport. In 2011, Hancock
Holding Company acquired Whitney National Bank. Whitney National Bank then merged with
and into Hancock Bank of Louisiana, and was renamed “Whitney Bank,” with a Louisiana charter.
At this point in time, Hancock Holding Company operated Hancock Bank, a Mississippi chartered
bank, and Whitney Bank, a Louisiana chartered bank. In 2014, Whitney Bank merged with
1
Hancock Bank under Hancock Bank’s existing Mississippi state charter, and the bank’s name was
changed to Whitney Bank. Recently, Whitney Bank changed its name to Hancock Whitney Bank.
Presently, it is a Mississippi chartered bank, with branches in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama,
and Florida.
II.
PRESENT MOTION
Plaintiffs move to remand, asserting that Hancock’s principal place of business is in
Louisiana, and it cannot remove an action based on diversity of citizenship when it is a forum
defendant. R. Doc. 9.
This Court ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery concerning Hancock’s
citizenship. In response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Hancock produced a list of its eleven
“Reg O” officers – those officers involved in “major policy-making functions” of the bank. Five
of them – including Hancock’s President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Banking Officer, Chief
Risk Officer, and Chief Credit Officer – are based in Hancock’s New Orleans office. Because
those individuals “direct, control, and coordinate” the corporation’s activities, Plaintiffs argue,
New Orleans is Hancock’s “nerve center” for jurisdictional purposes. Plaintiffs further contend
that the majority of Hancock Board and committee meetings take place in New Orleans. Finally,
Plaintiffs emphasize Hancock’s filings with the Louisiana Secretary of State, wherein Hancock
lists the address of its President and Chief Financial Officer as “228 St. Charles Avenue Executive
Offices.” R. Doc. 9-2 at 8.
In opposition, Hancock argues that its principal place of business is in Gulfport, Mississippi
– thus, it is not a forum defendant and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand must be denied. Hancock
contends that its “nerve center” is located in the Hancock Whitney Plaza in Gulfport, where
Hancock’s (1) highest level executive decision making occurs; (2) highest level executive and
2
operational officers maintain offices; (3) core technology systems are located; and (4) human
resources functions are managed. R. Doc. 14 at 14.
Hancock argues that its officers “direct, control, and coordinate” the corporation’s
activities from its Gulfport office. Eight out of Hancock’s eleven Reg O officers maintain offices
there. Most importantly, Hancock’s Chief Executive Officer – the highest ranking officer of the
bank to whom every executive officer ultimately reports – is located in Gulfport and does not have
dedicated office space in New Orleans.
Seven of Hancock’s fifteen Board members reside in Mississippi (including the
Chairman), while only two reside in Louisiana, and two out of every three state-mandated Board
meetings occur in Gulfport. The Capital Committee, composed of Hancock’s Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and President, is the “senior most
management committee and is responsible for the major strategic decisions of the company.”
Almost all of their monthly meetings take place in Gulfport – in the year preceding the filing of
the Notice of Removal, ten took place in Gulfport, and two took place in New Orleans.
III.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant … to the district court.” 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different
states in which the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). But a
civil action otherwise removable on the basis of diversity of citizenship “may not be removed if
any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in
which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Thus, if Hancock’s principal place of
business is located in the state of Louisiana, removal is improper and the case must be remanded.
3
As the removing party, Hancock has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Howery
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). Removal jurisdiction “raises significant
federalism concerns” and is strictly construed. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th
Cir. 1988). Indeed, “doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved
against federal jurisdiction.” Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, all disputed questions of fact must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. See
Burden v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 60 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995).
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation
and the state in which it maintains its “principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The
Supreme Court has defined the latter as “the place where the corporation’s officers direct, control,
and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).
This place, often referred to as the corporation’s “nerve center,” “should normally be the place
where the corporation maintains its headquarters” — so long as it “is the actual center of direction,
control, and coordination … and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board
meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the
occasion).” Id. at 93.
Although a corporation may conduct business activities in different locations across
multiple states, there can only be one “nerve center.” Id. at 95. This is true even with respect to
corporations that “divide their command and coordinating functions among officers who work at
several different locations.” Id. at 95-96. But even in these “hard cases,” the “nerve center” test
“nonetheless points courts in a single direction, toward the center of overall direction, control, and
coordination. Courts do not have to try to weigh corporate functions, assets, or revenues different
in kind, one from the other.” Id. at 96.
4
“When the high-level officers are dispersed geographically, the principal place of business
is ‘where a critical mass of controlling corporate officers’ works or where ‘significant corporate
decisions and strategy-forming are made,’ even if some officers live and work in another state.”
Rowell v. Shell Chem. LP, No. CV 14-2392, 2015 WL 7306435, at *4 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2015)
(quoting Elizondo v. Keppel Amfels, L.L.C., No. 14-220, 2015 WL 1976434, at *7 (S.D. Tex. May
1, 2015)).
Several of Hancock’s high-ranking executives are based primarily in New Orleans. But
those executive officers ultimately report to the Chief Executive Officer in Gulfport, and
Hancock’s Gulfport headquarters appears to be the location where a critical mass of Hancock’s
corporate decisions and strategies are formed and where many of its executive decision-makers
are located.
Indeed, Hancock’s highest-level decisions are made in Gulfport, where (1) two out of every
three state-mandated Board meetings are held; (2) the Capital Committee, composed of Hancock’s
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and President and
responsible for the corporation’s big-picture strategy and decisions, meets an overwhelming
majority of the time; and (3) eight out of Hancock’s eleven Reg O officers maintain offices. As
such, Hancock’s officers “direct, control, and coordinate” the bank’s activities from Gulfport,
Mississippi.
Plaintiffs point to Hancock’s filings with the Louisiana Secretary of State, wherein
Hancock lists the addresses of its President and Chief Financial Officer as “228 St. Charles Avenue
Executive Offices.” R. Doc. 9-2 at 8. That same filing, though, identifies Hancock’s Gulfport
address as its “principal business office,” and identifies its New Orleans office as its “principal
business establishment in Louisiana.” Id. (emphasis added).
5
Finally, Louisiana federal courts have consistently exercised diversity jurisdiction over
Hancock since 2014, and Hancock has consistently represented that it is a Mississippi citizen. See,
e.g., Whitney Bank v. First American Title Insurance Company, No. 17-7663 (E.D. La.);
Boudreaux v. Whitney Bank, No. 16-1190 (W.D. La.) (Louisiana citizen sued Hancock on the basis
of diversity, alleging that Hancock’s principal place of business was in Gulfport. After
“conduct[ing] a review of the pleadings,” the court concluded that “the parties are diverse.”);
Whitney Bank v. SMI Global Companies, Inc., No. 16-1427 (Hancock sued Louisiana citizens on
the basis of diversity, claiming its principal business office was in Gulfport. Again, upon reviewing
the pleadings, the court found the parties were diverse); Elder v. Whitney National Bank, No. 1736 (W.D. La.) (Hancock removed an action filed in Louisiana state court on the basis of diversity,
asserting that its principal place of business is in Gulfport); Whitney Bank v. Brooks, No. 16-693
(W.D. La.) (Hancock sued a Louisiana citizen on the basis of diversity).
Applying the nerve center test to these facts, the Court concludes that Hancock’s principal
place of business is in Gulfport, Mississippi. Because Hancock is incorporated in and maintains a
principal place of business in Mississippi, it is not a Louisiana citizen and the forum defendant
rule does not apply.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, R. Doc. 9, is
hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of October, 2018.
______________________________
ELDON E. FALLON
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?