The Hertz Corporation v. Melinda Friend et al.
The Court held that for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation's principal place of business is its "nerve center": the state in which its high-level executives work and direct the corporation.
559 U.S. 77 · No. 08-1107 · 2009 term · Roberts Court
Decided Feb 23, 2010 · argued Nov 10, 2009
Judicial power · Miscellaneous judicial power, especially diversity jurisdiction
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Vacated and remanded. The Hertz Corporation won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
The Hertz Corporation was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation's principal place of business is its "nerve center": the state in which its high-level executives work and direct the corporation. Diversity jurisdiction, described in the Judiciary Act of 1789, allows federal courts to hear cases on state law if the parties are "citizens" of different states. Since 1958, a corporation's citizenship is determined based on its principal place of business and where it is incorporated.
In 2007, two employees of The Hertz Corporation who lived in California sued the company over unpaid overtime, a violation of California state law. Hertz sought to remove the case from California state court to federal court on the basis that the corporation was a "citizen" of New Jersey, where its headquarters was, and Delaware, where it is incorporated. Under Hertz's theory, diversity jurisdiction applied because neither of those significant locations was California. At the time of the case, the Ninth Circuit, which oversees federal courts in California, primarily determined a corporation's principal place of business based on the state in which it conducted the most business. Hertz, doing more of its business in California than any other state, argued in the Supreme Court that this test should be replaced with a "headquarters test" that designated a corporation's headquarters as its principal place of business.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected both the Ninth Circuit's test and Hertz's proposal, opting to instead determine the principal place of business based on the corporation's "actual center of direction, control and coordination". This "nerve center" test had prior only been used by the Seventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court's decision resolved a circuit split. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, argued that the nerve center test best reflected the language of the Judiciary Act, was administratively simple, and best fulfilled Congress's intent in passing the Act. Hertz was considered a win for business defendants, who prefer litigating in federal courts, and a loss for plaintiffs across the country, who had a new obstacle in suing national corporations in California state court. The decision is considered a landmark opinion in American civil procedure and is taught in law schools as part of their elementary civil procedure curriculum.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2009 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- The Hertz CorporationEmployer
- Respondent
- Melinda Friend et al.Employee, or job applicant
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28-1332
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 23, 2010DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: vacated and remanded. The Hertz Corporation won.
- Nov 10, 2009ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
9 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous judicial power, especially diversity jurisdiction, newest first.
- The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist607 U.S. 421Feb 24, 2026 · 607 U.S. 421Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon137 S. Ct. 1504May 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1504Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Americold Logistics, LLC, v. Conagra Foods, Inc.577 U.S. 378Mar 7, 2016 · 577 U.S. 378Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Franconia Associates, et al. v. United States536 U.S. 129Jun 10, 2002 · 536 U.S. 129Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- National City Bank of New York v. Republic of China et al.348 U.S. 356Mar 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 356Judicial power4–36–3 band
- Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert348 U.S. 48Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 48Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Madruga v. Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Diego346 U.S. 556Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 556Judicial power7–27–2 band
- National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc.337 U.S. 582Jun 20, 1949 · 337 U.S. 582Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Cope v. Anderson, Receiver331 U.S. 461Jun 2, 1947 · 331 U.S. 461Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.