Harris v. Rand

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 06-13-2012
  • Case #: 10-57012
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Christen for the Court, Circuit Judges Fisher and Nelson
  • Full Text Opinion

Hertz does not raise the pleading standard, it simply establishes that the "nerve center" is a corporation's principal place of business and sufficient allegations, not proof, are required to meet the minimum pleading requirements under Twombly and Iqbal .

Harris filed suit in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it determined that Harris failed to provide factual support establishing diversity in its first amended complaint. Although Harris gave proof regarding defendant’s corporation, it did not provide proof of its own “nerve center.” The district court denied Harris’s motion for rehearing and alternative motion for leave to amend the complaint. The Ninth Circuit first held that the district court erred by dismissing the case because Hertz does not raise the pleading standard, it only changes the subject matter jurisdiction analysis. Secondly, the Court held that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint because the pleading standard requires sufficient allegations, rather than proof, of diversity to establish subject matter jurisdiction. VACATED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search