546US1
88
Unit: $U10
[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. v. ROCHE Opinion of the Court
“Virginia subsidiary, be it a partnership, corporation or oth erwise, rather than the Texas parent” was “the real and sub stantial party in interest.” Id., at 620–621. Lincoln, the party invoking federal-court jurisdiction, had not demon strated the nonexistence of “the Virginia sub-‘partnership,’ ” the Court of Appeals reasoned, id., at 621, and therefore had not met its burden of establishing diversity, id., at 621–622. We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1186 (2005), to resolve a division among the Circuits on the question whether an en tity not named or joined as a defendant can nonetheless be deemed a real party in interest whose presence would de stroy diversity. Compare 373 F. 3d, at 620–622, with Plains Growers, Inc. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F. 2d 250, 252 (CA5 1973) (“The citizenship of one who has an in terest in the lawsuit but who has not been made a party . . . by plaintiff cannot be used by plaintiff on a motion to remand to defeat diversity jurisdiction.”), and Simpson v. Provi dence Washington Ins. Group, 608 F. 2d 1171, 1173–1175 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J.) (upholding removal where Alaska plaintiff sued Rhode Island parent company without joining as well potentially liable Alaska subsidiary, and the parties did not act collusively to create diversity jurisdiction). II The Court of Appeals correctly identified Lincoln as a proper party to the action, but it erred in insisting that some other entity affiliated with Lincoln should have been joined as a codefendant, and that it was Lincoln’s obligation to name that entity and show that its joinder would not destroy diversity. We stress, first, that, at this stage of the case, the exist ence of complete diversity between the Roches and Lincoln is not in doubt. The Roches, both citizens of Virginia, ac knowledge that Lincoln is indeed a corporation, not a part nership, and that Lincoln is chartered in and has its principal place of business in Texas. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40–41; see App.
