Hernandez v. Amgen Manufacturing Limited
3:13-cv-01357
D.P.R.Oct 31, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Jorge L. Hernández, a Puerto Rico citizen and former AML Quality Inspector, sued Amgen Manufacturing Limited (AML) in federal court under Puerto Rico laws 80 and 115, claiming wrongful termination and retaliation and seeking > $75,000.
- Complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction; alleged AML was a Bermuda corporation with headquarters in California; Amgen, Inc. (parent) is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California.
- AML moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, submitting corporate documents and affidavits showing AML is incorporated in Bermuda but conducts its operations from a manufacturing site and corporate offices in Juncos, Puerto Rico.
- Hernández opposed, submitting his own affidavit asserting important decisions were made in Thousand Oaks, California, and seeking jurisdictional discovery.
- The central factual/legal question became AML’s “principal place of business” (nerve center) for 28 U.S.C. § 1332 purposes and whether Amgen’s California headquarters could be imputed to AML.
- Court evaluated the parties’ evidence, rejected Hernández’s conflation of AML with its parent Amgen, denied jurisdictional discovery, and concluded AML’s nerve center is in Juncos, Puerto Rico; case dismissed without prejudice for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists | Hernández contends AML’s principal place of business (nerve center) is in California because important decisions were made there | AML asserts its nerve center and principal offices are in Juncos, Puerto Rico and that AML is a Bermuda corporation with its principal place of business in PR | No diversity: AML’s nerve center is in Juncos, PR; parties are not diverse; dismissal granted |
| Whether AML’s parent status (Amgen) determines AML’s citizenship | Hernández relies on operational ties to Amgen in California to impute California citizenship to AML | AML and evidence show separate corporate identity; parent’s location does not automatically determine subsidiary’s principal place of business | Court enforces corporate separateness; Amgen’s citizenship is not imputed to AML |
| Standard and burden of proof for contesting jurisdiction | Hernández argued facts in his affidavit create dispute warranting discovery | AML provided affidavits and corporate documents; argued plaintiff failed to meet burden to show California nerve center | Plaintiff bore the burden and failed to provide competent, clear evidence; AML met its showing; plaintiff’s affidavit was insufficient |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should be permitted | Hernández sought discovery to develop jurisdictional facts | AML argued evidence is sufficient and plaintiff cannot show discovery would produce jurisdictional facts | Request denied: plaintiff did not make a colorable showing or identify facts discovery would likely reveal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (nerve-center test defines principal place of business)
- Taber Partners, I v. Merit Builders, Inc., 987 F.2d 57 (focus on corporation whose principal place is at issue; respect separate corporate identities)
- Topp v. CompAir Inc., 814 F.2d 830 (presumption of corporate separateness; parent ownership alone insufficient to attribute citizenship)
- Escude Cruz v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 619 F.2d 902 (clear evidence required to pierce corporate separateness for jurisdictional purposes)
- Negrón-Torres v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 478 F.3d 19 (colorable claim and facts required to obtain jurisdictional discovery)