Nerve Center Test

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

• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near Chicago
  644 F.2d 594· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 51×
  The court held that under applicable state choice-of-law rules, punitive damages cannot be allowed against either the manufacturer or the airline in these wrongful death actions.
• Kanzelberger v. Kanzelberger
  782 F.2d 774· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 48×
  A corporation's principal place of business is determined by its 'nerve center,' and if that center shifts to a state where a plaintiff is also a citizen, diversity jurisdiction is destroyed, even if the change resulted from a dispute over corporate control.
• Wisconsin Knife Works v. Nat'l Metal Crafters
  781 F.2d 1280· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that detrimental reliance is not an essential element of waiver under UCC § 2-209(4), and that a waiver affecting an executory portion of a contract can be retracted unless unjust reliance occurred under § 2-209(5).
• 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.
• Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc. v. United States
  787 F.2d 1186· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal tax lien was validly filed in Illinois and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating a default judgment against the government.
• Vareka Invs., N.V. v. Am. Inv. Props., Inc.
  724 F.2d 907· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and correctly granted summary judgment on liability and awarded damages, affirming the lower court's decision.
• 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.
• Candida Merino de Walker v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc.
  569 F.2d 1169· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a parent corporation's principal place of business is not determined by the activities of its wholly-owned, separately incorporated subsidiary, absent evidence of piercing the corporate veil.
• 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.
• 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
• R. G. Barry Corp. v. Mushroom Makers
  612 F.2d 651· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-11 ·cited 14×
  Removal of a state law dilution claim to federal court is improper if the complaint does not allege a federal question, and the removing party is a citizen of the forum state.
• Co-Efficient Energy Sys. v. CSL Indus., Inc.
  812 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff corporation's principal place of business was California, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  997 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of federal jurisdiction, holding that the defendant met its burden of proving the amount in controversy and complete diversity.
• 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.
• 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.
• Grinter v. Petroleum Operation Support Serv., Inc.
  846 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding that POSSI's principal place of business is Louisiana was not clearly erroneous, but vacated the dismissal of the pendent state law claim for the district court to exercise its discretion.
• Brooks v. United States
  833 F.2d 1136· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a mechanic's lien is a chose in action (personal property), not real property, and thus the government's tax lien filed in the corporation's principal executive office state had priority over a subsequent assignment of the mechanic's lien proceeds.
• Robert Clyde & Eve Despard v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant insurance company sufficiently demonstrated diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy, thus denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
• O'Connor v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.
  699 F. Supp. 1538· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, denied the motion to remand, granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, and granted the motion to strike the prayer for interest.
• 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.
• Barrantes Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co.
  667 F. Supp. 833· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 4×
  Removal was proper as defendants' principal places of business were not in Florida and Dole was fraudulently joined; the case is dismissed for forum non conveniens.
• Guillaume Danos, Sr. v. Waterford OIL Co.
  351 F.2d 940· 5th Cir.· 1965-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the principal place of business of Waterford Oil Company was in Louisiana.
• Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  119 F.4th 1276· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-22 ·cited 3×
  Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. corporation that held a 99-year usufructuary concession to operate piers at Havana's port confiscated by Cuba in 1960, sued cruise lines under the Helms-Burton Act's Title III for trafficking in its confiscated property between 2016 and 2019. The
• Leon v. First Liberty Ins.
  308 F. Supp. 2d 236· M.D. Fla.· 2012-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship existed.
• Rodriguez v. SK & F Co.
  833 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and that no federal question was present, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Wheeler v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-31
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction by not properly proving its principal place of business, requiring remand.
• Samsung Elecs. Latinoamerica (Zona Libre), S.A. v. MV Commc'ns Grp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-08
  The court held that it has personal jurisdiction over the respondents because their principal place of business, or 'nerve center,' is in Florida, where their sole owner and operator directed and controlled all corporate activities.
• Atria Holdings, S.A. v. Atl. Funding Cap. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-22
  The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to properly allege subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction.
• Bluewave Commc'n Servs., Inc v. PMRG Fiber Corp
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-24
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish federal diversity jurisdiction by not providing sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's principal place of business, necessitating remand.
• Horowitz v. Emerald Nutraceuticals, LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-08
  The court held that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it fails to adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction and constitutes a shotgun pleading.
• Horowitz v. Emerald Nutraceuticals, LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-08
  The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient pleading of diversity requirements and because it constituted a shotgun pleading.
• Ready2go Aviation LLC v. Galistair Trading Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17
  The court held that the defendants properly removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
• Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Venequip Mach. Sales Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-15
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction by not alleging the principal place of business for either party.
• Wayland v. The Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-26
  The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it failed to adequately plead federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
• Trudel v. Lifebit Biotech
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-07
  The Court lacks clear subject matter jurisdiction and requires parties to submit evidence to establish it.
• Gutierrez Polanco v. Ford
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-01-07
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists because the remaining parties are diverse, and the defendant corporation's principal place of business is in Arizona, not Florida.
• Murphy v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-02
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Bailey v. Ballistic Recovery Sys., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-01-29
  The court held that the defendant's principal place of business is Minnesota, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
• Landstar Sys., Inc. v. THE Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-04
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding its citizenship were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Tamiami Condo. Warehouse Plaza Ass'n, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-02
  A claim for declaratory relief is properly dismissed if it is duplicative of a breach of contract claim and the plaintiff can obtain full relief through the breach of contract claim.
• Kearney P'rs Fund v. US Ex Rel. Irs
  814 F. Supp. 2d 1349· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-29
  The court held that venue was proper in the Middle District of Florida because it was the principal place of business from which the decision-maker controlled the companies' activities.
• Garfield v. SunTrust Bank
  477 F. Supp. 2d 1177· S.D. Fla.· 2006-10-23
  The court held that the defendant's principal place of business is Georgia, establishing diversity jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
• Taber P'rs v. Merit Builders, Inc.
  987 F.2d 57· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-03
  A partnership's business activities should not be considered in determining the principal place of business of its corporate partners unless there is evidence that the partnership and its corporate partners failed to maintain separate identities.