Opinion
Case No. 1:03cv00089
December 31, 2003
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's E. Blame Johnson's and Cleo N. Johnson's Motion to Remand. plaintiff's' Motion to Remand argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. Specifically, plaintiff's allege that defendant Pacificorp. maintains its principal place of business in the State of Utah thereby rendering it a citizen of the State of Utah for diversity purposes. If Pacificorp. is found to be a citizen of the State of Utah as plaintiff's allege, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction and consequently subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). If the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction then the case must either be dismissed or remanded to the proper state court. The Court having considered the parties' briefs and the relevant law issues the following Order.
ORDER
The Court, in making its determination follows the Tenth Circuit's total activity approach to determine a corporation's principal place of business. Amoco Rochmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 1 F.3d 909, 915 (10th Cir. 1993), The Court considers factors such as the location of the corporation's nerve center, administrative offices, production facilities, and employees. Id. at 915. Application of the above factors produces the following findings:
(1) The Court finds that defendant Pacificorp's nerve center and administrative offices are located in Oregon. The Court's finding is based on the following factors: (A) Pacificorp's headquarters are located in Oregon; (B) the majority of Pacificorp's executive staff, administrative staff and management staff reside and work in Oregon; (C) all major corporate decisions pertaining to Pacificorp's operations are made in Oregon; and (D) all investor and shareholder services are conducted through the headquarters in Oregon.
(2) The Court finds that the majority of employees employed by Pacificorp. work in Oregon. This finding is based on the combination of management and non-management personnel working in the State of Oregon.
(3) The Court finds that 31.9% of Pacificorp's retail electric operating revenues were generated in the State of Oregon for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2003. The Court also finds that 33% of Pacificorp's customers are located in Oregon. Customers in Utah generated 38.8% of Pacificorp's retail electric operating revenues and represented 44.7% of Pacificorp's total customers.
(4) The Court finds that of Pacificorp's 1,517,199 customers, 673,479 reside in Utah, while 502,076 reside in Oregon.
While it is evident that Utah represents the largest portion of customers, it is also equally clear that the entity which provides the Utah customers their power is based in Oregon. The presence of the headquarters in Oregon coupled with the number of employees, including management and executives, based in Oregon, the amount of revenue produced in Oregon, all lead the Court to find that Pacificorp. is a citizen of Oregon for diversity purposes under the total activity approach. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiff's' Motion to Remand.