MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is a Motion to Remand filed by plaintiffs Eugene A. Lejeune and Tara Lejeune. Record document number 10. The motion is opposed.1

For the reasons which follow, the Motion to Remand should be denied.

Background

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Damages in state court naming as defendants Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc. ("CRA"), Jose Luis Gomez-Alanis, Miguel Agurirre, Action Resources, Inc., and Regions Insurance, Inc. Plaintiffs sought to recover damages allegedly resulting from a spill of hazardous material which contaminated the their property. Defendant Action Resources removed the case to this court asserting subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship.2 Defendant also alleged that the requisite amount in controversy was demonstrated by the allegations in the petition.3 Defendants Agurirre, Gomez-Alanis, Regions Insurance, and CRA consented in the removal.4

Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that defendant CRA should be deemed a Louisiana citizen because it has a principal place of business in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiffs also argued that the Notice of Removal was deficient for lack of proper consent of all the defendants. Plaintiffs also sought recovery of fees and costs associated with filing her motion.

Applicable Law

When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the action is not removable "if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is a citizen of the state where its principal place of business is located and all states where it is incorporated. The United States Supreme Court has defined the term "principal place of business" as "the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities," also known as the company's "nerve center." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). The Supreme Court further classified that the "nerve center" should be the place "where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination,[] and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings." Id. at 93.

Analysis

Based on a review of the allegations in the petition and the evidence in light of the applicable law, the defendants have demonstrated that CRA is not a citizen of Louisiana for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The Louisiana Secretary of State's records show that CRA was incorporated in Delaware and its principal business office is in New York. Defendants provided substantive evidence to show that CRA's nerve center, including its corporate headquarters, executive offices, and senior management, are located in either Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and/or Niagra Falls, New York.5 Defendants also explained that CRA merged with GHD Services, Inc. in July 2014. Defendants established that GHD was incorporated in Delaware and its corporate headquarters, executive offices, senior management, and senior human resources are also located in either Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and/or Niagra Falls, New York.6 Thus, the defendants have shown that CRA's principal place of business, under the nerve center test, is in either Canada and/or New York — and clearly not in Louisiana.

Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence to show that CRA's "nerve center" is located in Louisiana. Plaintiffs' legal analysis concerning CRA's citizenship, based upon it having a "Principal Business Establishment in Louisiana" located in Baton Rouge,7 is unsupported under the controlling Supreme Court standard. Also, the plaintiffs' procedural argument concerning lack of consent is completely unfounded, as shown by the consents to removal filed with the Notice of Removal (for defendants Aguirre and Gomez-Alanis), and the consents to removal filed next day (for Regions Insurance) and the day after that (for CRA).

Because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the Motion to Remand filed by plaintiffs Eugene A. Lejeune and Tara Lejeune be denied.