Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Colton Crane Co., LLC v. Terex Corp.

January 23, 2009

COLTON CRANE CO., LLC
v.
TEREX CORPORATION



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PRIORITY SEND

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This action was filed in this Court on December 24, 2008. However, it appears the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction for the reason(s) opposite the box(es) checked:

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but it does not appear that any of the claims "arise under" federal law.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings set forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of some of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.

[ ] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings fail to allege the citizenship of some or all of the:

[ ] plaintiff(s).

[ ] defendant(s).

[X] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association is joined as a party. The Court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members. The citizenship of each of the entity's partners or members must therefore be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990); United Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145 (1965); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1987).

[X] Jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Some of the parties are corporations. The complaint is deficient because: [ ] the complaint does not state both the respective state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

[X] the jurisdiction averment by plaintiff(s) is patently insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

Plaintiff(s) fail(s) to offer adequate facts to support the assertion that the principal place of business stated in the complaint is the corporate party's principal place of business. The Ninth Circuit determines a corporation's principal place of business by examining the entity's "total activities," which takes into account all aspects of the corporation's business, including where its operations are located, where it supervises that business, and where it employs persons and conducts its business. Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he principal place of business should be the place where the corporation conducts the most activity that is visible and impacts the public, so that it is least likely to suffer from prejudice against outsiders."). Accordingly, in determining a corporate party's principal place of business, this Court looks to the same factors. This entails (1) determining the location of the majority of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.