Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2010

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

559 U.S. 77 | 130 S. Ct. 1181 | 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 | 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1897

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Hertz established a uniform rule for corporate diversity citizenship: a corporation's principal place of business is its actual managerial “nerve center,” usually its headquarters, not the State where it conducts the most business.

Background

Melinda Friend and John Nhieu, California citizens, brought a California state-court class action against Hertz under California wage-and-hour law. Hertz removed the action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Although Hertz was incorporated outside California, the parties disputed its additional citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), which makes a corporation a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business.

Hertz submitted evidence that its corporate headquarters and senior leadership were in Park Ridge, New Jersey, where its core executive and administrative functions were carried out. But Hertz also conducted substantial operations in California: it had 273 of its 1,606 rental locations there, about 2,300 employees there, and significant California revenue and rental transactions.

Applying Ninth Circuit precedent, the District Court asked whether Hertz's business activity substantially predominated in a particular State. It concluded that California contained the largest concentration of Hertz's relevant activities and remanded the case for lack of complete diversity. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve disagreement among the circuits over the meaning of a corporation's “principal place of business.”

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court could review a court of appeals' decision affirming a remand order under the Class Action Fairness Act after the statutory period for the court of appeals to decide the appeal had expired.

Holding

Yes. Section 1453(c)'s deadline governs the court of appeals' disposition of the appeal; it does not eliminate the Supreme Court's preexisting certiorari jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254.

Reasoning

Respondents argued that § 1453(c) permits review of certain remand orders only in the courts of appeals and requires those courts to decide appeals within 60 days, subject to a limited extension. From that language, they inferred that Congress meant to bar later Supreme Court review, particularly after the time period had elapsed.

The Court declined to treat statutory silence or ambiguous language as an implied repeal or limitation of its certiorari jurisdiction. Section 1254 independently authorizes the Court to review by certiorari cases in the courts of appeals, and that authority rests on a long statutory history.

The 60-day provision therefore requires prompt action by the court of appeals. It does not strip the Supreme Court of authority to review the resulting appellate judgment.

Issue #2

Whether a corporation's “principal place of business” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) is the State where its business activities are most substantial or the place where its officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities.

Holding

A corporation's principal place of business is its “nerve center”: the single place where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities, ordinarily its actual headquarters.

Reasoning

The statutory text points to a single physical place. “Principal” calls for the corporation's main or leading place, and “place” is singular. A nerve center—usually the headquarters from which officers run the company—fits that language better than a test that compares the total volume of business conducted across entire States.

The Court rejected multifactor “business activities” and “total activities” approaches because they require courts to weigh disparate indicators, such as facilities, employees, revenue, payroll, transactions, and sales. Those approaches had produced inconsistent circuit rules, costly jurisdictional litigation, and unpredictable outcomes.

Administrative simplicity has special importance in subject-matter jurisdiction. Courts must assess jurisdiction independently, and litigants need a rule that can be applied with relative clarity before investing in litigation. The nerve-center test provides a more uniform and predictable rule than trying to identify the State with the greatest aggregate operational activity.

The legislative history reinforced that conclusion. Congress adopted the principal-place-of-business language after rejecting a gross-income test as too complicated and impractical. That history favored an interpretation no more complex than the numerical test Congress discarded.

The test is not simply a headquarters label. A stated headquarters counts only if it is the actual center of overall direction, control, and coordination. A mail drop, a nominal office, or a site used only for board meetings or occasional executive retreats cannot establish citizenship if the real command center is elsewhere.

The party invoking diversity bears the burden of proving the jurisdictional facts with competent evidence. A filing such as an SEC Form 10-K identifying “principal executive offices” is not, by itself, conclusive proof of a corporation's nerve center.

Hertz's unchallenged evidence indicated that its headquarters and actual center of direction, control, and coordination were in New Jersey. Because the plaintiffs had not litigated the facts under the newly announced standard, however, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.