They point to cases in which courts correctly explain that the jurisdictional analysis depends on more than the location of the day-to-day activities of the corporation. See e.g., Cali v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1288 (M.D. Ala. 2014); Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163, 172 (4th Cir. 2014); Cent. W. Virginia Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 105 (4th Cir. 2011); Celli v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4698509 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2020). While this principle is indeed correct, Plaintiffs attempt to stretch the authority to an overly formalistic reading.
Even if Smith's damages do exceed $75,000.00, Adrian is a citizen of Alabama, thus precluding the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. See Smith v. Circle K Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-699-WKW-CWB (Doc. No. 5 at 3-4) (explaining to Smith the requirements of diversity jurisdiction); see also Cail v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1288, 1291 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (explaining the requirement of complete diversity in cases founded on diversity jurisdiction). As the complaint plainly lacks a basis in law because diversity jurisdiction is lacking and no federal claims are alleged, it is frivolous. Miller, 541 F.3d at 1100 (noting that a complaint that lacks an arguable basis in law is frivolous).
(“Here, the Court does not focus on the locus of the day-to-day activities or daily management, but instead finds that the individuals making the significant corporate decisions and directing NWCA's policies and operations are directing NWCA from Atlanta.”); Cali v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1288. 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (“Defendants point out correctly that, under the nerve center test, a ‘corporation's day-today operations are not relevant to the nerve center test under Hertz.' .
Instead, courts look to where the "overall supervision and coordination of all functional operations" occurs. See Cail v. Joe Ryan Ent., Inc., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, there is complete diversity between the parties because Plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama and Auto-Owners is a citizen of Michigan.
Further, defendants "must support the jurisdictional facts 'by competent proof.'" Cail v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1291 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (quoting Hertz Corporation v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96-97 (2010)). It is undisputed that both B & W Land Company, LLC, and Ocean Springs Development, Inc., were incorporated in Delaware.
Cheek Decl., ¶ 3(c). See also Cail v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2014 WL 5685575, *3-5 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2014) ("The nerve center does not necessarily lie where 'the bulk of a company's business activities visible to the public take place,' that is, if the direction and control of those business activities occur from a location in another state. . . . Defendants point out correctly that, under the nerve center test, a 'corporation's day-to-day operations are not relevant to the nerve center test under Hertz.' The court has focused not on the day-to-day operations, but rather on who is directing, controlling, and coordinating those operations"); Balachander v. AET Inc. Ltd., No. H-10-4805, 2011 WL 4500048, *6-8 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2011) ("The Hertz Court recognized that 'hard cases' would remain.