09/02/2020 Hertz Corp V Friend FACTS: Employees that worked for Hertz Corps sued them in California state court for breaking the wage and hour regulations in California. Hertz filed a complaint for the case to be remove the case from state to federal court on the grounds that both parties were citizens of different states. To support Hertz’s claim that their headquarters was in New Jersey submitted a detail declaration. The employees however, provided evidence that Hertz’s conducted most of its business in California. By using the Ninth Circuit Court to provide evidence that most of Hertz’s business operation is in California, which would make the diversity jurisdiction irrelevant. This outcome would prove that Hertz’s main headquarters was in California. Hertz lodged an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. At the request of Hertz, the Supreme Court agreed to grant it in their favor. ISSUE: Is Hertz Corp. principal place of business considering to be where most of their business takes place or where their head corporate ofÏce is? RULE: “Principal place of business” is the primary location where its business is performed. Where a corporation’s ofÏcers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. APPLICATION: Hertz argued that New Jersey, and not California, is the company’s principal place of business. Hertz provided proof of documents to show that their company’s business activities accounted for only 20 percent in California. Whereas the corporate headquarters of Hertz was in New Jersey. Hertz also argued that when looking at the words principal place of business it is interpreted that where the corporation headquarters is located. The employees argued that Hertz’s principal place of business resided in California by applying the Ninth Circuit. This decided that the bulk of Hertz’s company was in California and not in New Jersey. The employees also claim that Hertz primarily worked in California, by comparing the amount of operation between the two states. Since that shows Hertz conducting business predominantly in California then it should be known as their main place of business. The Supreme Court agree to grant the appeal on the Ninth Circuit. Since using the Ninth Circuit Court to decide that if Hertz’s was a California citizen did not comply to the principal place of business rule. While their activities were substantial in California, the court ruled that Hertz’s main operating headquarters was in New Jersey while looking at the principal place of business law. CONCLUSION: When Hertz’s presented the declaration proving that their main business activity was in New Jersey the Supreme Court decided to favor Hertz’s request to remove the Ninth Circuit and have the case go to federal court.