Court Opinion

ID: 9398878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 16:03:22.769842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.225345
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10895    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 06/01/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit
                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10895
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ANA MARGARITA MARTINEZ,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       NETFLIX, INC.,
       OLIVIER ASSAYAS,
       ORANGE STUDIOS, S.A.,
                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-24328-WPD
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10895       Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 06/01/2023      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                    23-10895

       Before JORDAN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to
       the jurisdictional question, this appeal is REMANDED to the dis-
       trict court for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of
       the parties to establish whether diversity jurisdiction existed in the
       first instance. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings
       L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (11th Cir. 2004).
               While Appellant seeks leave to amend the amended com-
       plaint to allege her citizenship, as well as the citizenship of appellee
       Olivier Assayas, she does not seek to amend the citizenship allega-
       tions as to appellee Orange Studios, S.A (“Orange”). The amended
       complaint alleges only that Orange is a French anonymous society
       headquartered in France. However, that allegation is inadequate
       because it does not sufficiently allege Orange’s principal place of
       business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (providing that a corporation is
       deemed a citizen of every state and foreign state in which it has
       been incorporated and of the state or foreign state where it has its
       principal place of business); Vareka Invs., N.V. v. Am. Inv. Props., Inc.,
       724 F.2d 907, 909 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that a foreign corporation
       is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it has its principal
       place of business); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010)
       (explaining that a corporation’s principal place of business is nor-
       mally its headquarters, so long as the headquarters is “the actual
USCA11 Case: 23-10895      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 06/01/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10895               Opinion of the Court                          3

       center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the nerve cen-
       ter”).
              Accordingly, we cannot definitively determine from the rec-
       ord whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction, so we
       REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of determin-
       ing whether the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
       See Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218,
       1228 (11th Cir. 2017) (“In the end, when the parties do not do their
       part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the
       requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forc-
       ing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdic-
       tion in the 21st century.”). Appellant’s motion to amend the citi-
       zenship allegations in the amended complaint, incorporated in her
       response to the jurisdictional question, is DENIED without preju-
       dice to her seeking such an amendment on remand.
               If the district court determines that the parties were com-
       pletely diverse in citizenship, then it should enter an order to that
       effect and return the record, as supplemented, to this Court for fur-
       ther proceedings. However, if the district court determines that
       complete diversity did not exist, then it should indicate its intention
       to vacate its final order and return the record, as supplemented by
       that indicative order, to this Court for further proceedings.