Bryfogle v. Acme Market, Inc., Civ. A. No. 25871.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1959
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 25871.
• Parties: Virginia BRYFOGLE and Benjamin Bryfogle, husband and wife v. ACME MARKET, INC. and American Stores Co.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

176 F. Supp. 43

Virginia BRYFOGLE and Benjamin Bryfogle, husband and wife v. ACME MARKET, INC. and American Stores Co.

Civ. A. No. 25871.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 2, 1959.

B. N. Richter, of Richter, Lord & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

J. Paul Erwin, Philadelphia, Pa., for Acme Market, Inc., and American Stores Co.

HASTIE, Circuit Judge.

A motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint for lack of essential diversity of citizenship among the parties is before the court for disposition. The suit is a negligent injury claim against two defendants, Acme Market, Inc. and American Stores Co., each sued as a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania.

The motion to dismiss is supported by affidavits purporting to show that the place of business of each defendant in Philadelphia, as acknowledged in the complaint, is its principal place of business. On that basis the movants invoke the recently enacted Subsection 1332(c) of Title 28 United States Code, Public Law 85-554 of July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415, which has added to the existing statutory delimitation of diversity jurisdiction a provision that "for the purposes of this section * * * a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of * * * the State where it has its principal place of business".

The plaintiff contends that Section 1332(c) is inapplicable, arguing that it applies only when the corporation in question is a plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction and not where the corporation is being sued as a citizen of the state of its incorporation. However, the basic and unchanged provision of Section 1332 is that "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of * * * civil actions * * * between * * * citizens of different States". To this there has been added merely that a "corporation shall be deemed a citizen * * of the State where it has its principal place of business", as well as of its state of incorporation. As concerns the point now urged we think this language is clearly comprehensive and entirely unambiguous. It provides no basis and leaves no room for a construction which would give it force when a corporation sues but not when a corporation is sued. The reach of the statute is so plain on its face that no proper occasion arises for investigating the legislative history, as plaintiff would do, to find some indication that Congress had less in mind than it said.

The...