546US1
Unit: $U10
[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 81 (2005)
83
Opinion of the Court the controversy, e. g., Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467, 469–470, Lincoln has a vital interest in this case. Indeed, Lincoln accepted responsibility, in the event the Roches prevailed on the merits, by admitting that it man aged Westfield Village. In any event, the Fourth Circuit had no war rant in this case to inquire whether some other person might have been joined as an additional or substitute defendant. Congress, empowered to prescribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts, sometimes has speci fied that a named party’s own citizenship does not determine its diverse status. But Congress has not directed that a corporation, for diversity purposes, shall be deemed to have acquired the citizenship of all or any of its affiliates. For cases like the Roches’, Congress has provided sim ply and only that “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business,” § 1332(c)(1). The jurisdictional rule gov erning here is unambiguous and not amenable to judicial enlargement. Under § 1332(c)(1), Lincoln is a citizen of Texas alone, and under § 1441(a) and (b), this case was properly removed. Pp. 91–94. 373 F. 3d 610, reversed and remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
David C. Frederick argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Scott K. Attaway, Connie N. Bertram, Richard A. Dean, and Carol T. Stone. Gregory P. Joseph argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Sandra M. Lipsman and Doug las J. Pepe.* Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns 28 U. S. C. § 1441, which authorizes the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court when the action initiated in state court is one that could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court. § 1441(a). When federal-court jurisdiction is predicated on the parties’ diversity of citizenship, see § 1332, removal is permissible “only if none of the parties in interest properly
- Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Real Estate
Roundtable et al. by Gregory G. Garre; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp.
