28 U.S.C. § 1332(C)

86 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Perfecto Barrantes Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co.
  883 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 73×
  A domestically incorporated corporation with a principal place of business outside the United States does not have dual citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus its foreign principal place of business does not defeat diversity jurisdiction when sued by alien plai
• Metro Indus. Painting Corp. & Max Gerben v. Terminal Constr. Co., Inc.
  287 F.2d 382· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-16 ·cited 69×
  The court held that federal law governs arbitrability under the Federal Arbitration Act when a contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce, and that the disputes at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
• Kelly v. United States Steel Corp. & The Thew Shovel Co.
  284 F.2d 850· 3d Cir.· 1960-12-09 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes is determined by the center of corporate activity and management, not solely by the location of director meetings or the 'nerve center'.
• Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co. & Halliburton Co.
  677 F.2d 1035· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a district court erred in retaining jurisdiction over state-law third-party claims after the main federal admiralty claims were settled, as such retention was not justified by judicial efficiency or necessity and improperly encroached on state law.
• Ed Freeman and wife Sharon Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp.
  754 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity was likely absent, as the plaintiffs may have been citizens of Colorado, and the defendant corporation, through its subsidiary, also had Colorado citizenship.
• Mrs. Georgia Ann Toms v. Country Quality Meats, Inc.
  610 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding Country Quality Meats, Inc.'s principal place of business was Georgia, and that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to properly allege jurisdiction.
• Elston Inv., Ltd. v. David Altman Leasing Corp. & ThermaSol, Ltd.
  731 F.2d 436· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 29×
  The citizenship of a limited partnership for diversity jurisdiction purposes is the citizenship of all its partners, both general and limited.
• Evanston Ins. Co. v. Jimco, Inc.
  844 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 27×
  A federal court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurer seeking to determine coverage, even if parallel state court actions exist, unless exceptional circumstances clearly warrant dismissal.
• Paz R. Hernandez v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  489 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-19 ·cited 26×
  In a direct action by an employee against their employer's workmen's compensation insurer, the insurer is deemed a citizen of the state of which the insured employer is a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• Nolan v. The Boeing Co.
  919 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 24×
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's removal provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), allows a foreign state third-party defendant to remove the entire action, not just its own claims, to federal court, provided minimal diversity exists. The court also affirmed dismissal on forum non co
• Kane v. The Ford Motor Co.
  450 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 24×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a service letter as evidence because it was irrelevant to the plaintiff's theory of the case.
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  932 F.2d 1523· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that because the plaintiffs' motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the district court erred in remanding the cases and should have vacated its remand order.
• Vicente Acevedo Velez v. Crown Life Ins. Co.
  599 F.2d 471· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that attorney's fees sought under a Puerto Rican statute are includable in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, but interest is not. The court also affirmed the denial of coverage under the group life insurance policy.
• Jerguson v. Blue DOT Inv., Inc.
  659 F.2d 31· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 21×
  A foreign corporation is deemed a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Est. OF Herbert Cammon
  929 F.2d 1220· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 20×
  A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to enter a final judgment, and a default judgment for failure to comply with discovery orders is permissible when the non-compliance is willful.
• Ill. State Tr. Co. v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n OF ST. Louis
  440 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to remand and properly granted the motion for a directed verdict.
• Lugo-Vina v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc.
  574 F.2d 41· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding diversity jurisdiction because the evidence did not establish New York as Pueblo's principal place of business.
• Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc.
  875 F.2d 388· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the attorney's jurisdictional theory was plausible and supported by authority, and therefore the Rule 11 sanction was too harsh.
• J.A. Olson Co. v. City OF Winona
  818 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 16×
  A corporation's principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction is determined by the 'total activity' test, which considers both the 'nerve center' and the 'place of activity' based on the totality of the facts.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co. v. Leyron Alvin Greene
  606 F.2d 123· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-11 ·cited 16×
  The 1964 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), which limits diversity jurisdiction in direct actions against insurers, does not apply to actions brought by a liability insurer.
• Carson v. Allied News Co.
  511 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1653 might allow amendments to cure jurisdictional defects, this specific case is not appropriate for the appellate court to dismiss a non-diverse party.
• Woodward v. D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc.
  428 F.2d 880· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the removal of the case to federal court by not moving for remand and by participating in the litigation, and that their delay in asserting a counterclaim for professional malpractice barred them from doing so at this l
• Topp v. Compair Inc.
  814 F.2d 830· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the 'nerve center' test by looking to the parent corporations' activities rather than CompAir Inc.'s own operations, and that CompAir Inc.'s principal place of business is New Hampshire, thus destroying diversity jurisdicti
• McLAUGHLIN v. Arco Polymers, Inc.
  721 F.2d 426· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in transferring the case to state court under 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5103(b) because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and no federal claim was properly before it.
• Sabo v. Standard OIL Co. OF Ind.
  295 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1961-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant corporation's principal place of business was Illinois, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction and affirming the dismissal of the suit.
• Waste Sys., Inc. v. Clean Land AIR Water Corp.
  683 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts should not exercise discretionary jurisdiction over ancillary state law claims when the main federal claim has been settled and dismissed, especially when complex state law issues are involved.
• Broyles v. Bayless
  878 F.2d 1400· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an uninsured motorist carrier's citizenship should not be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes when it has not exercised substantial control over the litigation and its liability is contingent and indirect.
• Odishelidze v. AETNA Life & Cas. Co.
  853 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend jurisdictional allegations, but affirmed the dismissal of the federal antitrust and RICO claims.
• Chick KAM Choo v. Exxon Corp.
  764 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 11×
  Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) cannot be invoked in a suit between an individual alien plaintiff and an alien corporation with its principal place of business in a U.S. state.
• Messer v. Am. Gems, Inc.
  612 F.2d 1367· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The citizenship of a nominal personal representative, appointed solely to bring a wrongful death action, does not control for diversity jurisdiction purposes; the citizenship of the beneficiaries does.
• Paoletto v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  464 F.2d 976· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the choice of law issue was a false conflict, and that evidence regarding manufacturing standards and inspections was admissible to rebut claims of defect. The court also found no reversible error in the jury instructions or the denial of the summary judgment
• The Stouffer Corp. v. Breckenridge
  859 F.2d 75· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 9×
  The court should affirm the district court's refusal to dismiss for want of diversity jurisdiction, as the general partner is the real party to the controversy.
• Schwartz v. Elec. Data Sys., Inc.
  913 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had diversity jurisdiction and properly granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims of fraud and breach of contract, as the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of his claims.
• Orma Gale Moore v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  819 F.2d 101· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-11 ·cited 8×
  A third party's claim against an insurer for bad faith refusal to settle is not separate and independent from a claim against the insured for damages resulting from an automobile accident for removal purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy
  912 F.2d 1090· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that where a majority of a corporation's business activity takes place in one state, that state is its principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes, even if headquarters are elsewhere.
• Torres v. Hartford Ins. Co.
  588 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), an insurer in a direct action suit is deemed a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff if either the named insured or the omnibus insured is a citizen of that state, thereby restricting diversity jurisdiction.
• Iowa Pub. Serv. Co. v. Med. BOW Coal Co.
  556 F.2d 400· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissed plaintiffs were real parties in interest, meaning there was no complete diversity of citizenship, and the case should have been remanded to state court.
• Yancoskie v. Del. River Port Auth.
  528 F.2d 722· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's cause of action did not arise under federal law and there was no diversity of citizenship.
• Denton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  733 F. Supp. 340· M.D. Fla.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 5×
  A petition for removal that fails to state the amount in controversy or the defendant corporation's principal place of business contains missing allegations, not imperfect ones, and thus cannot be amended after the thirty-day statutory period has expired.
• Danjaq, S.A. v. Pathe Commc'ns Corp.
  979 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 4×
  Alien corporations are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), and a subsidiary's activities are not considered for determining a parent's principal place of business absent an alter ego showing.
• Olen Kelly v. Ky. OAK Mining Co., Inc.
  491 F.2d 318· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district judge committed clear error by dismissing the action sua sponte for defective jurisdictional allegations without allowing plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint.
• Barkhorn v. Adlib Assocs., Inc.
  345 F.2d 173· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts must independently verify diversity jurisdiction, even if parties do not contest it, and remanded for an inquiry into the jurisdictional facts.
• Simon Holdings PLC Grp. of Cos. U.K. v. Klenz
  878 F. Supp. 210· M.D. Fla.· 1995-02-02 ·cited 3×
  A foreign-chartered corporation with its principal place of business in the United States is considered both an alien and a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes, thus destroying complete diversity when suing or being sued by another alien.
• Cohn v. Rosenfeld
  733 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-25 ·cited 3×
  A Liechtenstein anstalt is considered a citizen or subject of Liechtenstein for diversity jurisdiction purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and lost profits are recoverable damages for breach of contract if foreseeable.
• Stanley v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  426 F. Supp. 2d 1275· M.D. Fla.· 2006-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's motions to strike the jury demand and dismiss the bad faith claims were denied without prejudice, as the complaint did not sufficiently allege facts to establish ERISA preemption or an ERISA plan, but diversity jurisdiction was present.
• Galva Foundry Co. v. Heiden
  924 F.2d 729· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's actions did not change his state of domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes, despite his attempts to appear as a Florida resident for tax benefits.
• Jones v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
  385 F. Supp. 2d 1268· M.D. Fla.· 2005-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet the heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder, and thus the case must be remanded to state court.
• Newsom v. Zurich Ins. Co.
  397 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-17 ·cited 1×
  Federal diversity jurisdiction does not exist in a direct action against an insurer when the plaintiff and the insured are citizens of the same state.
• Neiman v. AllState Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-26
  The court recommended remanding the case because the notice of removal failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, and the defendant did not cure these deficiencies.
• Treace Med. Concepts, Inc. v. Pine Grove Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because the pleadings did not properly state the citizenship of the defendant LLC and its members.