Stockton v. CNH Industrial America LLC et al
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; denying 25 Motion to Remand (kjp, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JEREMY R. STOCKTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA, LLC, and
CNH INDUSTRIAL, N.V.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-CV-464-GKF-PJC
OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. # 25] is denied for the following reasons:
1.
Defendant CNH Industrial N.V. is a public limited liability company (naamloze
vennootshap) incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, and has its corporate headquarters
in London, United Kingdom [Doc. #2-6, p. 23]. Plaintiff focuses on the words “limited liability
company” and argues that the Court should treat a Netherlands N.V. in the same way it treats
LLCs existing under state laws for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction analysis. However, the
fact that a foreign entity uses the words “limited liability” does not itself indicate that it is an
LLC for the purposes of U.S. law and the diversity statute.
CNH Industrial N.V. was
incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands as a naamlooze vennootschap, and other federal
courts have treated Netherlands N.V.’s as corporations for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction
analysis. See De Wit v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, N.V., 570 F.Supp. 613, 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
2.
Insofar as CNH Industries N.V. was incorporated under the laws of the
Netherlands, its stock is publicly traded, and it offers limited liability for its equity investors, it
therefore more closely resembles a corporation than a limited liability company. See Fellowes v.
Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equip., 759 F.3d 787, 788 (7th Cir. 2014); Boumatic, LLC v.
Idento Operations, BV, 759 F.3d 790, 791 (7th Cir. 2014). The rule pertaining to unincorporated
associations—that courts must include all of the members of an unincorporated association when
determining the entity’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes—does not apply.
Compare Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Surety Company, 781 F.3d 1233, 1237 (10th
Cir. 2015).
3.
Alternatively, even if the court adopted the generally accepted test for
determining whether an entity is a foreign citizen for purposes of Section 1332(a)(2), defendant
CNH Industrial N.V. would be considered a “juridical person” under the law that created it—the
Netherlands. 15 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 102.75 (Matthew Bender, 3d ed.). “Under this
rule, it does not matter whether the entity most closely resembles a corporation or any other
common law entity, but only whether the entity is considered a ‘juridical person’ under the law
that created it.” Id.
Insofar as defendant CNH Industrial N.V. is a foreign corporation, diverse from Plaintiff,
diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. #25] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2016.
2
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?