From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

EVERNU TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. ROHM HAAS COMPANY

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 26, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2635 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

rejecting the argument that the location of the corporate parent determines the “principal place of business” of a subsidiary when the latter's “officers [sought] approval from [the parent] for only ‘exceptional’ transactions ... such as acquiring a business or building a new plant”

Summary of this case from St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Scopia Windmill Fund, LP
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2635.

August 26, 2010

ORDER

PAUL DIAMOND, District Judge

AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the Parties' briefs regarding jurisdiction (Doc. Nos. 15, 17), it is hereby ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

EVERNU TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. ROHM HAAS COMPANY

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 26, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2635 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2010)

rejecting the argument that the location of the corporate parent determines the “principal place of business” of a subsidiary when the latter's “officers [sought] approval from [the parent] for only ‘exceptional’ transactions ... such as acquiring a business or building a new plant”

Summary of this case from St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Scopia Windmill Fund, LP

refusing to impute the parent company's principal place of business in Michigan to subsidiary, noting that "every subsidiary's 'nerve center' would necessarily be the location of its parent" where high-level review of the parent company is emphasized over the actual running of the business at issue

Summary of this case from Elite Integrated Med., LLC v. New World Commc'ns of Atlanta, Inc.

In EverNu Tech, the court found the subsidiary of a Michigan corporation had its principal place of business in Pennsylvania because the subsidiary operated autonomously from its parent and the subsidiary had separate officers and directors from the parent and they worked in Pennsylvania. EverNu Tech, 2010 WL 3419892, at *4-5.

Summary of this case from York Grp., Inc. v. Pontone
Case details for

EVERNU TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. ROHM HAAS COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:EVERNU TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. ROHM HAAS COMPANY

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 26, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2635 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2010)

Citing Cases

York Grp., Inc. v. Pontone

The recent decisions cited by defendants involve subsidiaries that either had officers who were not officers…

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Scopia Windmill Fund, LP

But the record, as just discussed, undermines Scopia's puppet-master theory. And, in light of this record, to…

6 Citing Cases