Thomas v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P., 2010 WL 1229943, (W.D. La. Mar. 26, 2010) (No. CIV.A 09-0888).
Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Hertz Corp that a company’s “principal place of business” for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction is its “nerve center,” the District Court in Louisiana found it unnecessary to allow the plaintiff’s motion for limited jurisdictional discovery to develop information regarding the citizenship of the defendant.
The plaintiff, Judy Marie Thomas, originally filed this action in a Louisiana state court. The defendants removed the case claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332, and jurisdiction under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).
The plaintiff then filed a motion for limited jurisdictional discovery to develop information regarding the citizenship of the defendant, Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P, which the District Court denied.
In light of the recent Supreme Court case, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010), the District Court found that it was unnecessary to allow the plaintiff to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery. In Hertz Corp, the Supreme Court held that a company’s “principal place of business” for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction is its “nerve center”– where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, which typically will be the location of its headquarters.
Further, the Court observed that both the plaintiff and the defendants had presented sufficient evidence relative to the citizenship of Chesapeake Louisiana, including its general and limited partners.