Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Karapet Gayanyan, An Individual v. Travelers Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 2, 2011

KARAPET GAYANYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

[Dkt. No. 14]

Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff contends that this case should be remanded because Defendant, like Plaintiff, is a citizen of California, and therefore the parties are not diverse. (Motion at 8.)

Plaintiff concedes that the proper test for determining a corporation's principal place of business for purposes of establishing diversity of citizenship is laid out in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). (Reply at 3.) In Hertz, the Supreme Court explained that a corporation's principal place of business is the place "where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." Hertz, 130 S.Ct. at 1192. This single location is also sometimes described as a corporation's "nerve center." Id. Generally, a corporation's headquarters is also the "nerve center." Id.

Plaintiff asserts that because his particular insurance claim was handled in Defendant's California office, California is Defendant's "nerve center." (Reply at 4-5.) The court disagrees. Defendant has established that its home office, main administrative office, and main records archives are located in Connecticut. (Declaration of Wendy Skjerven ¶ 4.) Many of Defendant's senior officers and the majority of Defendant's Board of Directors are also located in Connecticut. (Skjerven Dec. ¶ 5.) Executive meetings regarding business management decisions take place primarily in Connecticut. (Id.)

The court is satisfied that Defendant's principal place of business is in Connecticut. Accordingly, the parties are diverse, and this court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff's motion is, therefore, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111102

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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