Immigration Solutions, Inc. v. Joshua Stiffler ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IMMIGRATION SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 22-35163
Incorporated in Florida doing business as Sam
Asbury, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01186-HL
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JOSHUA C. STIFFLER, an Oregon resident,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Andrew D. Hallman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BENNETT, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Immigration Solutions, Inc., appeals the district court’s dismissal for
lack of diversity jurisdiction and the court’s denial of its motion for default
judgment. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
“District courts have jurisdiction in civil actions where there is complete
diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d
1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). To establish diversity
jurisdiction, Immigration Solutions must show that the parties were citizens of
different states “at the time suit is filed.” Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S.
468, 478 (2003); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857–58 (9th Cir.
2001) (indicating that the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction belongs to the
party asserting jurisdiction). Because there is no dispute that defendant Joshua
Stiffler was a citizen of Oregon and Immigration Solutions was incorporated in
Florida, the sole question for diversity of citizenship is whether Immigration
Solutions carried its burden to show that it had its principal place of business
somewhere other than Oregon at the time it filed its complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1).
A corporation’s “principal place of business” is “the place where a
corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities,”
commonly referred to as “the corporation’s ‘nerve center.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
559 U.S. 77, 92–93 (2010); see also Co-Efficient Energy Sys. v. CSL Indus., Inc.,
812 F.2d 556, 557–58 (9th Cir. 1987) (concluding that a corporation’s principal
place of business was where the “sole shareholder and director” “made business
2
decisions”). Immigration Solutions contends that its principal place of business at
the time it filed its complaint was Tampa, Florida. However, Immigration Solutions
cites to no specific evidence, apart from drafting the complaint for this matter,
indicating that Immigration Solutions’ activities were directed from Tampa between
March 2019, when Immigration Solutions purchased the Oregon investment
property, and August 2021, when it filed the complaint. Immigration Solutions also
relies on the presence of Samuel Asbury, its president, in Tampa on July 22, 2021,
at a meeting for the association that manages Immigration Solutions’ office
condominium. But Immigration Solutions fails to show that this meeting has
anything to do with “direct[ing], control[ling], [or] coordinat[ing]” Immigration
Solutions. Hertz Corp., 559 U.S. at 92–93.
Instead, the specific evidence in the record of Asbury and Immigration
Solutions’ activities between March 2019 and August 2021, when this complaint
was filed, suggests that Asbury spent much of that time in Oregon fixing up
Immigration Solutions’ investment property. Indeed, at the hearing before the
magistrate judge, Asbury admitted that “one could reasonably conclude that” during
the time leading up to the complaint, the record indicated that “the only corporate
actions that were going on were … the work on the [investment property]” in
Oregon.
3
The magistrate judge characterized the evidence that Immigration Solutions
advanced for Florida citizenship as “broad, sweeping statements about general
business activity from a time period spanning [Immigration Solutions’] creation in
2012 through 2021,” and did not “find these broad and time-expansive
generalizations convincing in establishing diversity between the parties at the time
of filing.” Instead, the magistrate judge found the location ambiguous. That finding
is not clearly erroneous. See Co-Efficient Energy Sys., 812 F.2d at 557 (stating the
standard of review). Because Immigration Solutions failed to meet its burden of
establishing diversity of citizenship between the parties, the magistrate judge did not
err in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
Immigration Solutions additionally appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of
its motion for default judgment. But “[b]ecause we conclude the district court did
not have diversity jurisdiction, our jurisdiction is ‘not of the merits but merely for
the purpose of [affirming] … the lower court in [not] entertaining the suit.” Nike,
Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir.
1994) (quoting United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440 (1936)). It is immaterial
that the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction came after the motion for default
judgment was denied, as federal courts “ha[ve] a duty to consider jurisdiction sua
sponte” and may assess jurisdiction at any time in the course of a federal case. Nome
Eskimo Cmty. v. Babbitt, 67 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1995).
4
AFFIRMED.
5