Consider the plight of the general counsel of Hertz Corp., a company with operations in 44 states. As a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New Jersey, it had considered itself a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey for purposes of determining federal diversity subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and well-established precedent in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hertz’s general counsel, therefore, no doubt, regularly abandoned the possibility of litigating many state-law claims in federal court in the District of New Jersey. Since, according to case law, Hertz’s principal place of business was in New Jersey, and thus it was a citizen of New Jersey for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction purposes, it could not sue a New Jersey defendant based on state law claims in New Jersey’s federal district court. Nor could it remove many state-law claims filed in New Jersey. Although the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA, may permit a citizen of New Jersey to remove a New Jersey state case to federal district court, that exception to the removal statute might not assist Hertz if all plaintiffs were New Jersey citizens.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
