LADSON
v.
BURLINGTON STORES, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction by not properly alleging its principal place of business.
The defendant removed a personal injury action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant stated its state of incorporation but f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Principal Place Of Business cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant Burlington Stores, Inc.’s (“Burlington’s”) Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1). This is a personal injury action that Burlington removed based on diversity jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a case from state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The existence of federal jurisdiction is tested at the time of removal.” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F. 3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F. 3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, they are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). And removal statutes are strictly construed with doubts resolved for remand. Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F. 3d 909, 912 (11th Cir. 2014).
Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases with complete diversity and an amount in controversy over $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For purposes of determining diversity, a corporation is a citizen of both its place(s) of incorporation and its principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c). A corporation’s “principal place of business” is its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). This is the place “where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s
activities.” Id. Burlington’s Notice of Removal says it is a “New Jersey corporation” and is “therefore a citizen of the State of New Jersey for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” (Doc. 1 at 5). But where Burlington is incorporated is only half
the inquiry. Burlington has not told the Court its principal place of business. Accordingly, it has not properly alleged its own citizenship. The Court finds that Burlington has not met its burden of establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendant Burlington Stores, Inc. must SUPPLEMENT its Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) on or before December 7, 2023, to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Failure to comply with this Order will cause this case being remanded without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 28, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Leonard v. Enter. Rent A CAR, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Dudley v. ELI Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014)