HERTZ
a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of
the State where it has its principal place of business.
- Principal place of business: place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control,
and coordinate the corporation’s activities (“nerve center”)
- Nerve Center= BRAIN. Where is the Corporate Brain? Could be somewhere other than
where the headquarters are located
Melinda Friend and John Nhieu, two California citizens, sued the petitioner, the Hertz
Corporation, in a California state court. They sought damages for what they claimed were
violations of California’s wage and hour laws
- Hertz “plaintiffs and the defendant were citizens of different States”
- Friend and Nhieu, however, claimed that the Hertz Corporation was a California citizen, like
themselves
- Court: given those facts, Hertz was a citizen of California. If the amount of activity is
“significantly larger in one State (California), then that State is the corporation’s “principal
place of business.” If there is no such State, then it’s the corporation's' ‘nerve center,’ — the
place where “ ‘the majority of its executive and administrative functions are performed.’ ”
Hertz appealed: The District Court consequently remanded the case to the state courts
1789 (the First Judiciary Act): Congress first authorized federal courts to exercise diversity
jurisdiction
- Court: 1928 “a corporation closely identified with State could proceed in a federal court
located in that State as long as the corporation had filed its incorporation papers and
perhaps a State where the corporation did no business at all.
- Those testifying + in congress: “this interpretation was at odds with diversity jurisdiction’s
basic rationale, namely, opening the federal courts’ doors to those who might otherwise
suffer from local prejudice against out-of-state parties.”
- Court: 1951 ‘a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of the state of its original creation …
[and] shall also be deemed a citizen of a state where it has its principal place of business.’
- Court: 1958 A corporation was to “be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been
incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.”
Court: “principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s
officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of
Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place
where the corporation maintains its headquarters
- a corporation a citizen of the “State where it has its principal place of business.
- administrative simplicity is a major virtue in a jurisdictional statute.
- the statute’s legislative history, for those who accept it, offers a simplicity-related interpretive
benchmark.
Prejudice against an out-of-state party—will often depend upon factors that courts cannot
easily measure
- ex: a corporation’s image, its history, and its advertising,
“nerve center,” and its corporate headquarters are one and the same, and they are located
in New Jersey, not in California. Because respondents should have a fair op- portunity to
litigate their case in light of our holding, however, we vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
, - It IS diverse because they’re in New Jersey
- The courts changed their mind
Corporation has two domiciles,
- Principal Place of business (sell in CA more than anywhere else, but board meets in NJ)
- Where they’re incorporated (Delaware)
GILLIGAN
Can you make them go to class? Students still refuse to go to class. National Guard tries to make
them, and opens fire when they don’t go. They massacred innocent unarmed students.
Students at Kent State, Ohio, filed a lawsuit against the National Guard/Gov of Ohio after a
shooting incident in 1970, where National Guard troops, called in to manage civil unrest, used lethal
force against students.
- (π) plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to prevent future violations
- District Court: “failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted” DISMISSED
FEDERAL COURT:
argues that the authority of Congress and the executive branch to regulate the training and
weaponry of the National Guard is so clear and comprehensive that judicial interference in these
matters would be inappropriate
- If courts were involved, there could be multiple conflicting rulings on the same issue from
different branches or courts, creating confusion.
SUPREME COURT:
14th Amendment: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." states congress can
discipline national guard
Overall Ruling:
- The court is not saying that the National Guard is always beyond judicial review
(meaning the courts can't never look into its actions)
- This particular case does not present an issue that the courts need to get involved in.
“For these reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.”
- The Court of Appeals originally ruled that the National Guard's training and weaponry
could be subject to judicial review or intervention.
Supreme Court decided to overturn or cancel the decision made by the Court of Appeals.
They thought executive or legislative has more of a say
- THIS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION: the american voter will punish them. No one is
saying this is good, so they say it’s better if political branches decide
- Military matters that are very technical and subjective AND asking for future
relief—meaning that they want the court to monitor ongoing military activities and
training programs in the future. This is different from asking for relief based on past
actions (like seeking damages for something that already happened).
a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of
the State where it has its principal place of business.
- Principal place of business: place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control,
and coordinate the corporation’s activities (“nerve center”)
- Nerve Center= BRAIN. Where is the Corporate Brain? Could be somewhere other than
where the headquarters are located
Melinda Friend and John Nhieu, two California citizens, sued the petitioner, the Hertz
Corporation, in a California state court. They sought damages for what they claimed were
violations of California’s wage and hour laws
- Hertz “plaintiffs and the defendant were citizens of different States”
- Friend and Nhieu, however, claimed that the Hertz Corporation was a California citizen, like
themselves
- Court: given those facts, Hertz was a citizen of California. If the amount of activity is
“significantly larger in one State (California), then that State is the corporation’s “principal
place of business.” If there is no such State, then it’s the corporation's' ‘nerve center,’ — the
place where “ ‘the majority of its executive and administrative functions are performed.’ ”
Hertz appealed: The District Court consequently remanded the case to the state courts
1789 (the First Judiciary Act): Congress first authorized federal courts to exercise diversity
jurisdiction
- Court: 1928 “a corporation closely identified with State could proceed in a federal court
located in that State as long as the corporation had filed its incorporation papers and
perhaps a State where the corporation did no business at all.
- Those testifying + in congress: “this interpretation was at odds with diversity jurisdiction’s
basic rationale, namely, opening the federal courts’ doors to those who might otherwise
suffer from local prejudice against out-of-state parties.”
- Court: 1951 ‘a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of the state of its original creation …
[and] shall also be deemed a citizen of a state where it has its principal place of business.’
- Court: 1958 A corporation was to “be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been
incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.”
Court: “principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s
officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of
Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place
where the corporation maintains its headquarters
- a corporation a citizen of the “State where it has its principal place of business.
- administrative simplicity is a major virtue in a jurisdictional statute.
- the statute’s legislative history, for those who accept it, offers a simplicity-related interpretive
benchmark.
Prejudice against an out-of-state party—will often depend upon factors that courts cannot
easily measure
- ex: a corporation’s image, its history, and its advertising,
“nerve center,” and its corporate headquarters are one and the same, and they are located
in New Jersey, not in California. Because respondents should have a fair op- portunity to
litigate their case in light of our holding, however, we vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
, - It IS diverse because they’re in New Jersey
- The courts changed their mind
Corporation has two domiciles,
- Principal Place of business (sell in CA more than anywhere else, but board meets in NJ)
- Where they’re incorporated (Delaware)
GILLIGAN
Can you make them go to class? Students still refuse to go to class. National Guard tries to make
them, and opens fire when they don’t go. They massacred innocent unarmed students.
Students at Kent State, Ohio, filed a lawsuit against the National Guard/Gov of Ohio after a
shooting incident in 1970, where National Guard troops, called in to manage civil unrest, used lethal
force against students.
- (π) plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to prevent future violations
- District Court: “failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted” DISMISSED
FEDERAL COURT:
argues that the authority of Congress and the executive branch to regulate the training and
weaponry of the National Guard is so clear and comprehensive that judicial interference in these
matters would be inappropriate
- If courts were involved, there could be multiple conflicting rulings on the same issue from
different branches or courts, creating confusion.
SUPREME COURT:
14th Amendment: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." states congress can
discipline national guard
Overall Ruling:
- The court is not saying that the National Guard is always beyond judicial review
(meaning the courts can't never look into its actions)
- This particular case does not present an issue that the courts need to get involved in.
“For these reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.”
- The Court of Appeals originally ruled that the National Guard's training and weaponry
could be subject to judicial review or intervention.
Supreme Court decided to overturn or cancel the decision made by the Court of Appeals.
They thought executive or legislative has more of a say
- THIS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION: the american voter will punish them. No one is
saying this is good, so they say it’s better if political branches decide
- Military matters that are very technical and subjective AND asking for future
relief—meaning that they want the court to monitor ongoing military activities and
training programs in the future. This is different from asking for relief based on past
actions (like seeking damages for something that already happened).
