WM Mobile Bay Environmental Center, Inc. v. The City of Mobile, 1:18-cv-00429

Background

Case remanded by the Eleventh Circuit for the district court to make factual findings on the parties’ citizenship at the time the complaint was filed (Oct. 4, 2018) to determine diversity jurisdiction.
Parties: Plaintiff WM Mobile Bay Environmental Center, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware) vs. City of Mobile and Mobile Solid Waste Disposal Authority (both Alabama citizens).
Dispute: WM Mobile contends its principal place of business (nerve center) was its Madison, Mississippi headquarters in Oct. 2018; the Authority contends the nerve center was at the Chastang Landfill or other Alabama locations.
Evidence for WM Mobile: declarations and deposition testimony of senior officers (Myhan, Griffing, Farmer) showing high-level decision-making, budgeting, and coordination occurred from the Madison office; corporate filings listing a Madison address; Waste Management performed some centralized functions from Houston.
Authority’s rebuttal: emphasized day-to-day operations and on-site managers in Alabama, WM Mobile’s Alabama parent/lessee, lack of Mississippi corporate registration and municipal privilege license, and alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Ruling: After limited discovery and supplemental briefing, the court found WM Mobile carried its burden and that its principal place of business (nerve center) was Madison, Mississippi as of October 4, 2018, so federal diversity jurisdiction existed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Principal place of business at filing	Madison, MS was WM Mobile’s headquarters and nerve center where officers directed, controlled, coordinated major decisions	Chastang Landfill (or Waste Away HQ in AL) was the real nerve center because operations and managers were in Alabama	Court held Madison, MS was the nerve center in Oct. 2018; WM Mobile met its burden
Relevance of lack of MS corporate registration / local business license	Not required because WM Mobile did not "transact business" in MS; activities were internal corporate affairs exempted by statute	Absence of registration/license shows Madison was not the principal place of business	Court held registration/license absence did not rebut Madison nerve-center evidence; not required under the facts
Weight of day-to-day operations vs. high‑level control	Nerve-center test focuses on where officers make major decisions, not where day-to-day work occurs	Day-to-day control at Chastang and Alabama-based employees shows nerve center is Alabama	Court applied Hertz nerve-center test: day-to-day locus is less important than where high-level decisions are made; found Madison controlled major decisions
Burden and sufficiency of proof for jurisdiction	WM Mobile must provide competent proof of its nerve center; offered depositions, declarations, corporate records	Authority contended testimony was inconsistent, office evidence suspect, and centralized corporate functions elsewhere	Court found WM Mobile’s testimony and records competent and credible; plaintiff satisfied burden to establish principal place of business in MS

Key Cases Cited

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (adopts the "nerve center" test: principal place of business is where officers direct, control, and coordinate)
PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2016) (diversity jurisdiction assessed at the time the complaint is filed)
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (diversity analysis depends on facts at filing)
OSI, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.3d 947 (11th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff bears burden to prove subject-matter jurisdiction when facts are challenged)
Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163 (4th Cir. 2014) (nerve-center inquiry focuses on where significant corporate decisions are made, not daily operations)
Cali v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1288 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (applies nerve-center test and emphasizes decisionmaking locus over operational locus)