Ana Martinez v. Netflix, Inc.

USCA11 Case: 23-10895 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 23-10895 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ANA MARGARITA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NETFLIX, INC., OLIVIER ASSAYAS, ORANGE STUDIOS, S.A., Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-24328-WPD ____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10895 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2023 Page: 2 of 3 USCA11 Case: 23-10895 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2023 Page: 3 of 3

Footnotes

[2] Opinion of the Court 23-10895 Before JORDAN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, this appeal is REMANDED to the dis- trict court for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties to establish whether diversity jurisdiction existed in the first instance. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (11th Cir. 2004). While Appellant seeks leave to amend the amended com- plaint to allege her citizenship, as well as the citizenship of appellee Olivier Assayas, she does not seek to amend the citizenship allega- tions as to appellee Orange Studios, S.A (“Orange”). The amended complaint alleges only that Orange is a French anonymous society headquartered in France. However, that allegation is inadequate because it does not sufficiently allege Orange’s principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (providing that a corporation is deemed a citizen of every state and foreign state in which it has been incorporated and of the state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business); Vareka Invs., N.V. v. Am. Inv. Props., Inc.,

[724] F.2d 907, 909 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that a foreign corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it has its principal place of business); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010) (explaining that a corporation’s principal place of business is nor- mally its headquarters, so long as the headquarters is “the actual 23-10895 Opinion of the Court 3 center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the nerve cen- ter”). Accordingly, we cannot definitively determine from the rec- ord whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction, so we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of determin- ing whether the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. See Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1228 (11th Cir. 2017) (“In the end, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. We must be vigilant in forc- ing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity jurisdic- tion in the 21st century.”). Appellant’s motion to amend the citi- zenship allegations in the amended complaint, incorporated in her response to the jurisdictional question, is DENIED without preju- dice to her seeking such an amendment on remand. If the district court determines that the parties were com- pletely diverse in citizenship, then it should enter an order to that effect and return the record, as supplemented, to this Court for fur- ther proceedings. However, if the district court determines that complete diversity did not exist, then it should indicate its intention to vacate its final order and return the record, as supplemented by that indicative order, to this Court for further proceedings.