Ana Martinez v. Netflix, Inc., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

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

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --