Friend v. Hertz Corporation, 2008 WL 4750198 (9^th Cir. 10/30/08)*

Hertz revs its engine, throws it into first, and removes this California class action to federal court via CAFA…and then stalls out. The district court remands the case to California state court and the 9^th Circuit affirms.

Additionally, in addressing regular ole diversity jurisdiction, the 9^th Circuit affirms that the district court correctly applied the “place of operations” test to determine that Hertz’s principal place of business is California, not Florida (a finding that was likely bolstered by the fact that Hertz’s own people declared that Hertz’s relevant business activities were ‘significantly larger’ in California). 

The 9^th Circuit flattened Hertz’s arguments that the court must consider the comparative populations of states in which a corporation operates to determine whether activities are significantly larger in one state than another, and that policy concerns mandate a per capita calculation. 

The 9^th Circuit found that in light of Hertz’s substantial contacts and business activities in Cali, it will not be “in jeopardy of being mistreated” there. 

Hertz didn’t make it out of the driveway on this one.  

* This opinion was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.  You ought to know this already, but just in case you don’t here goes:  See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (Find CTA9 Rule 36-3)