Hertz Corp. v. Friend Case Brief
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 rejected complex “business activities” tests for corporate citizenship. It held that a corporation’s “principal place of business” for diversity jurisdiction is its “nerve center”—the single location where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities.
Legal Significance: This case established the “nerve center” test as the sole standard for determining a corporation’s principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), resolving a circuit split and prioritizing administrative simplicity and predictability in diversity jurisdiction analysis.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
California citizens sued Hertz Corporation in California state court. Hertz sought to remove the case to federal court, asserting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The plaintiffs challenged the removal, arguing that complete diversity was lacking because Hertz’s principal place of business was in California, making it a citizen of the same state. Hertz presented evidence that its corporate headquarters and executive leadership were located in Park Ridge, New Jersey, where its core decision-making and administrative functions occurred. However, Hertz’s business operations in California were substantial, accounting for more revenue, employees, and rental locations than in any other state. The District Court, applying the Ninth Circuit’s “business activities” test, found that Hertz’s activities in California were “significantly larger” than elsewhere. It thus concluded Hertz was a citizen of California, destroying diversity, and remanded the case to state court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the proper test for determining a corporation’s principal place of business.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What is the appropriate test under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) for determining a corporation’s “principal place of business” for the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction?
The Court held that the “nerve center” test determines a corporation’s principal 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
What is the appropriate test under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) for determining a corporation’s “principal place of business” for the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction?
Conclusion
The decision established a clear, uniform standard for corporate citizenship in diversity 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. Du
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 exercitat
Legal Analysis
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Breyer emphasized that administrative simplicity is 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 ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, se
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A corporation’s “principal place of business” for diversity jurisdiction is its