The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found diversity of citizenship did exist in light of Hertz analysis required by Supreme Court
(April 2011) By Eric M. Leppo, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
Central West Virginia Energy Company, Inc., et al. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, et al.,
Case No.: 10-1486 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, April 13, 2011) |
View pdf
In this recently issued opinion from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Court held that there was complete diversity
between the parties and that diversity of citizenship jurisdiction existed,
reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for West Virginia.
Plaintiffs, Central West Virginia Energy Company and A.T.
Massey Coal Company, filed suit in federal district court against multiple
defendants including Mountain State Carbon, LLC and Severstal Wheeling, Inc.
alleging breach of their coal supply contract. The Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint based on a lack of federal jurisdiction.
Specifically, they disputed that diversity of citizenship existed, arguing that
Plaintiff Central West Virginia Energy and Defendant Severstal Wheeling were
both West Virginian companies.
Federal District Courts have original jurisdiction over
all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). It is well-regarded that diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
requires complete diversity amongst the parties—that is—that no plaintiff is
a citizen of the same State as any defendant. Corporations are deemed to be
citizens of their State of incorporation as well as the State where they
have their principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
The Court first noted that the Fourth Circuit has
previously used two tests in determining a corporation’s principal place of
business. The first test, called the "nerve center test," sought to identify
the home office from which the corporation’s officers direct, control, and
coordinate the corporation’s activities. The second test, called the "place
of operations test," put its emphasis on the location where the bulk of
corporate activity occurred. Fourth Circuit courts were to evaluate cases
and determine the appropriate test to be used based on case-specific facts.
However, the Supreme Court’s recently issued opinion in
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010), clarified the
application of the phrase ‘principal place of business.’ It held that this
phrase should always refer to “the place where the corporation’s high level
officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”
Hertz at 1186. The Fourth Circuit noted the Supreme Court desired to
adopt a simpler, unified test for determining principal place of business in
the diversity of citizenship context. The Court’s holding was essentially an
adoption of the “nerve center test.”
Severstal Wheeling, Inc. has its daily management and
business operations almost exclusively in the state of West Virginia. On
this basis, it contended—and the Federal District Court agreed—that it was a
citizen of West Virginia. However, there were also uncontested facts
reflecting that seven (7) of the eight (8) corporate officers of Severstal,
including its CEO, CFO, COO, and General Counsel maintain their offices and
perform their work in Dearborn, Michigan. It is these officers who control
the corporation and set policy for the company.
The Fourth Circuit held that in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Hertz, directing use of the nerve center test,
the decision on principal place of business was clear cut. They rejected
Severstal’s argument that its association with and operation in West
Virginia made that State its principal place of business. The Court noted
that consideration of such factors would simply undercut the Supreme Court’s
desire to have a simpler test that can be uniformly applied.