Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
FRIEND v. HERTZ CORPORATION, 297 Fed.Appx. 690 (9th Cir. 2008)
297 Fed.Appx. 690
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2008-10-30
- Topic
- general
FRIEND v. HERTZ CORPORATION, 297 Fed.Appx. 690 (9th Cir. 2008) Melinda FRIEND, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERTZ CORPORATION,Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-16963.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Argued and Submitted October 21, 2008. Filed October 30, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Joshua G.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed FRIEND v. HERTZ CORPORATION, 297 Fed.Appx. 690 (9th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
FRIEND v. HERTZ CORPORATION,297 Fed.Appx. 690(9th Cir. 2008)
Melinda FRIEND, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERTZ CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-16963.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted October 21, 2008.
Filed October 30, 2008.
Page 691
Joshua G. Konecky, Esquire, Clint J. Brayton, Schneider Wallace, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Chris Baker, Robert A. Dolinko, Esquire, Thelen LLP, San Francisco, CA, Frank B. Shuster, Esquire, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Chris Baker, Robert A. Dolinko, Esquire, Thelen LLP, San Francisco, CA, Frank B. Shuster, Esquire, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge. D.C. No. C-07-5222-MMC.
Before: FERNANDEZ, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUMfn*
Hertz's Notice of Appeal makes clear that Hertz removed this class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).28 U.S.C. § 1453(c). Therefore, even assuming we lack authority "to accept an appeal from the denial of a motion to remand when a class action has been removed to federal court on the basis of traditional diversity jurisdiction,"Saab v.Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,469 F.3d 758,759(8th Cir. 2006), rather than pursuant to CAFA, we have jurisdiction over Hertz's timely appeal from the district court's order remanding this class action to state court.28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
The district court correctly applied the "place of operations" test to determine Hertz's principal place of business.Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't.,236 F.3d 495(9th Cir. 2001);Industrial Tectonics v. AeroAlloy,912 F.2d 1090(9th Cir. 1990). Taking the facts as set forth in the Declaration of Krista Memmelaar, Hertz's relevant business activities are "significantly larger" in California than in the next largest state, Florida. Although the difference between the amount of Hertz's business activity in California and the amount of its activity in Florida is not as large as the difference deemed to be significant inTosco, California nevertheless "contains a substantial predominance" of Hertz's operations.Tosco Corp.,236 F.3d at 500.
NeitherTosconorIndustrial Tectonicssupports Hertz's argument that we must consider the comparative population of states in which a corporation operates to determine whether activities are significantly larger in one state than another.Id.; Industrial Tectonics,912 F.2d at 1092. Nor do policy concerns mandate the application of a per capita calculation. With its extensive California contacts and business activities, Hertz is not in jeopardy of being mistreated in California courts.
Because California is Hertz's principal place of business under the "place of operations" test, we do not apply the nerve center test.Tosco,236 F.3d at 500.AFFIRMED.Page 692
The district court correctly applied the "place of operations" test to determine Hertz's principal place of business.Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't.,236 F.3d 495(9th Cir. 2001);Industrial Tectonics v. AeroAlloy,912 F.2d 1090(9th Cir. 1990). Taking the facts as set forth in the Declaration of Krista Memmelaar, Hertz's relevant business activities are "significantly larger" in California than in the next largest state, Florida. Although the difference between the amount of Hertz's business activity in California and the amount of its activity in Florida is not as large as the difference deemed to be significant inTosco, California nevertheless "contains a substantial predominance" of Hertz's operations.Tosco Corp.,236 F.3d at 500.
NeitherTosconorIndustrial Tectonicssupports Hertz's argument that we must consider the comparative population of states in which a corporation operates to determine whether activities are significantly larger in one state than another.Id.; Industrial Tectonics,912 F.2d at 1092. Nor do policy concerns mandate the application of a per capita calculation. With its extensive California contacts and business activities, Hertz is not in jeopardy of being mistreated in California courts.
Because California is Hertz's principal place of business under the "place of operations" test, we do not apply the nerve center test.Tosco,236 F.3d at 500.AFFIRMED.Page 692