Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.

209 F. Supp. 921, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5785
District Court, M.D. Georgia·Decided October 10, 1962·No. Civ. A. 912·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ELLIOTT,' District Judge.

This action was brought in this court by a Georgia citizen with alleged jurisdiction being based on diversity of citizenship of the parties. The defendant challenges the existence of such diversity by a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Except for the ground claimed there does not appear to be any other basis for federal jurisdiction.' The defendant alleges that its principal place of business is in Georgia. The plaintiff contends that it is elsewhere. The 1958 amendment to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (c) provides: “a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” The defendant is a New York coi-poration, so the question whether this court has jurisdiction turns upon a determination of the actual principal place of business of the defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff have insisted that the issue presented is one which should be submitted to a jury for determination. Counsel for the defendant contend that it is a question which should be determined by the court without reference to a jury.

If Georgia law does require the submission of this question to a jury as contended by plaintiff, this would not mean that such procedure must be followed here, for although a state-created right may be enforced in a federal court because of diversity of citizenship, the federal court will proceed by its own rules of procedure, and these are not necessarily identical with those of the state in which the federal court is sitting. Odekirk v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 274 F.2d 441, 445, 7th Cir. (1960). It is true that in such diversity cases all substantive matters are controlled by state law, but purely procedural matters which do not affect the substantive rights of the parties are controlled by federal law. Rensing v. Turner Aviation Corporation, 166 F.Supp. 790, 793, D.C.N.D.Ill. (1958); Brookshire v. Penn. R. R. Co., D.C., 14 F.R.D. 154.

The generally accepted view in the federal courts is that the court may in its discretion decide the issue of diversity or it may submit the question to a jury for decision. Seideman v. Hamilton, 275 F.2d 224, 226, 3rd Cir. (1960); Guarantee Trust Company v. Collings, 76 F.2d 870, 3rd Cir. (1935); and the preferred practice in recent years has been for the court to decide jurisdictional questions without a jury. Guarantee Trust Company v. Collings, supra (1935); Taylor v. Hubbell, 188 F.2d 106, 9th Cir., (1951); Munro v. Doherr, 156 F.Supp. *923 723, D.C.D.Mass. (1957). The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit has stated that the parties do not have a right to have the jurisdictional issue tried by a jury and has commented that the normal and usual procedure is for such matters to be determined by the judge. Hardin v. McAvoy, 216 F.2d 399, 403, 5th Cir. (1954).

In passing we might point out that this court has heretofore followed the practice of determining the location of a party’s “principal place of business” without referring the question to a jury, and we think it is particularly appropriate that we do so when, as in this case, there is no real contest between the parties as to the basic facts upon which a determination must be made, but only as to how the statute should be interpreted in the light of these facts. Accordingly, this matter will not be referred to a jury and we will proceed to a determination of the issue based upon the evidence before the court, which consists of affidavits and answers to interrogatories, counsel for both parties having been heard in oral argument with respect thereto.

The present action was commenced in April, 1962 and jurisdictional facts existing at that time must furnish the basis of the court’s conclusion as to the defendant’s principal place of business. The parties have stipulated that while some of the evidence before the court relates to facts existing as of other dates, such matter shall be deemed to be accurately representative of the situation existing on the date on which this action was filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 209 F. Supp. 921, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5785 (M.D. Ga. 1962).

209 F. Supp. 921 (Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related