Mott v. Accenture, LLP
8:17-cv-00231
D. MarylandJul 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joseph M. Mott, a Maryland resident, sued Accenture LLP in Montgomery County Circuit Court alleging age, gender, and national-origin discrimination, mixed-motive discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge, and unpaid bonus under Maryland law.
- Mott worked remotely from Bethesda, Maryland and was employed by Accenture LLP from December 2014 until his termination in fall 2016.
- Accenture LLP removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; Accenture LLP is organized under Illinois law and listed Illinois as its domestic status; SDAT records show a Maryland business location but do not label it the LLP’s principal place of business.
- Mott moved to remand, arguing Accenture LLP is a Maryland citizen because of its SDAT registration listing a Maryland office, that LLC/LLP citizenship is governed by domicile, and that Accenture’s corporate structure and disclosure were insufficient.
- Accenture responded with affidavits and documentary evidence identifying its members (Accenture Inc. and Accenture LLC), their Delaware incorporation, and Illinois as the corporations’ nerve center/principal place of business.
- The court considered whether the LLP (and related corporate entities) are Maryland citizens for 28 U.S.C. § 1332 purposes and denied the motion to remand, finding diversity jurisdiction satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Mott: Accenture LLP is a Maryland citizen because its SDAT registration lists a Maryland office and thus shows domicile/intent to be in Maryland | Accenture: LLP members are Accenture Inc. and Accenture LLC (Delaware/Illinois); citizenship is based on members’ citizenship (state of incorporation and nerve center), not SDAT address | Court: Remand denied — SDAT listing insufficient; citizenship determined by members, not registration address |
| Proper test for LLP citizenship | Mott: citizenship governed by domiciliary principles (physical presence + intent) | Accenture: LLP citizenship depends on citizenship of its members per Carden; corporate members’ citizenship determined by incorporation and principal place of business (Hertz) | Court: LLP citizenship governed by members; Hertz rule applies to corporate members |
| Whether Accenture plc’s citizenship controls (piercing/aggregation) | Mott: Accenture LLP is effectively controlled by Accenture plc and structure masks true citizenship | Accenture: No evidence treating LLP as identical to plc; even if plc considered, it is incorporated in Delaware and has its nerve center in Illinois, not Maryland | Court: No basis to treat plc as controlling; even if considered, plc is not a Maryland citizen |
| Sufficiency of local disclosure (Local Rule 103.3) | Mott: Accenture failed to disclose parent/affiliate Accenture plc and related entities; non-disclosure supports remand | Accenture: Disclosure errors are technical; affidavits cure any defects and show members’ citizenship | Court: Disclosure defects alone do not compel remand; affidavits and exhibits cure technical defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket Inc., 407 F.3d 255 (4th Cir.) (burden of demonstrating federal jurisdiction lies with removing party)
- Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185 (U.S.) (partnership citizenship determined by citizenship of partners)
- Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda., 388 F.3d 114 (4th Cir.) (LLP/member citizenship principles applied)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (U.S.) (corporate citizenship determined by state of incorporation and principal place of business/nerve center)
- Newman–Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo–Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S.) (procedural guidance on jurisdictional allegations and cures)
- Trans/Air Mfg. Corp. v. Merson, 524 F. Supp. 2d 718 (D. Md.) (distinction between principal office in state and principal place of business for diversity)
- Haak Motors LLC v. Arangio, 670 F. Supp. 2d 430 (D. Md.) (LLC/LLP citizenship analysis reflects members’ citizenship)
- Scholl v. Sagon RV Supercenter, LLC, 249 F.R.D. 230 (W.D.N.C.) (defective allegations of citizenship may be amended and cured)