Hertz Corp. v. Friend Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court established the “nerve center” test to determine a corporation’s principal place of business for federal diversity jurisdiction, defining it as where high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate activities.
Legal Significance: This case resolved a circuit split, adopting the “nerve center” test for determining a corporation’s principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), prioritizing administrative simplicity and predictability in diversity jurisdiction.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondents, California citizens, sued Hertz Corporation in California state court. Hertz sought removal to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), asserting its principal place of business was in New Jersey, where its corporate headquarters and leadership were located. Respondents argued Hertz was a California citizen because its California business activities (rental locations, employees, revenue, transactions) were substantial. The District Court, applying Ninth Circuit precedent, found California was Hertz’s principal place of business because its business activity there was “significantly larger” than in any other state, thus defeating diversity. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicting interpretations among the Circuits regarding the meaning of “principal place of business.” Hertz’s declaration indicated its core executive and administrative functions were carried out at its New Jersey headquarters, with some operations in Oklahoma, while California accounted for a plurality of its business metrics but not a majority.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: How should a corporation’s “principal place of business” be determined for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)?
The Court held that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
How should a corporation’s “principal place of business” be determined for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)?
Conclusion
This decision established a uniform and relatively simple "nerve center" test for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitat
Legal Rule
For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a corporation's "principal place of business" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Legal Analysis
The Court adopted the "nerve center" test, emphasizing three main considerations (Opinion, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A corporation’s “principal place of business” for diversity jurisdiction is its