Rodriguez v. SK & F Co.

Decision Date10 November 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-1322,87-1322
Citation833 F.2d 8
PartiesFernando RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SK & F CO., Defendant, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Jesus Hernandez-Sanchez, Santurce, on brief, for appellant.

Gregory T. Usera and McConnell Valdes Kelley Sifre Griggs & Ruiz-Suria, Hato Rey, P.R., on brief, for appellee.

Before BREYER, Circuit Judge, BROWN, * Senior Circuit Judge, and SELYA, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case comes to us on appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the face of the complaint, the plaintiff has failed to allege grounds upon which to support either his conclusory allegation of diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm.

Fernando Rodriguez was employed by SK & F Company from 1976 to 1984. Rodriguez claims he was discharged because of his refusal to certify that a major cleaning had been performed on a machine which had not been cleaned, a violation of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The complaint fails to allege either the citizenship or the residence of the plaintiff. While the complaint does allege that SK & F is owned by Smith, Klein and Beckman, a multi-national pharmaceutical corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, the complaint does not allege the citizenship of SK & F. On the face of the complaint, therefore, Rodriguez has failed to assert grounds upon which to support his allegation of diversity jurisdiction.

On the well grounded assumption that Rodriguez is a Puerto Rican citizen, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction a corporation has dual citizenship, that of the state of its incorporation and that of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(c); de Walker v. Pueblo International, Inc., 569 F.2d 1169 (1st Cir.1978). On the uncontradicted affidavits in the record, SK & F is a citizen of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of business in Puerto Rico. Although SK & F is a subsidiary of a Pennsylvania corporation, SK & F is directed and controlled by officers in Puerto Rico. This court has developed three separate tests for determining a corporation's principal place of business, all of which support Puerto Rican citizenship. de Walker, supra.

Under the nerve center test, the focus is on the center from which the company is controlled. SK & F operates independently from its parent company in Pennsylvania, and all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 15 Septiembre 1995
    ... ... (Id. at p. 1454, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 485; Rodriguez v. SK & F Co. (1st Cir.1987) 833 F.2d 8, 9; Pacific Trading Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc. (7th Cir.1976) 547 F.2d 367, 370.) ...         We agree with Powers on this issue. As that court observed, there is no basis for allowing a negligence claim to proceed, based upon the per se ... ...
  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 13 Marzo 2001
    ...Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1139 (4th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1197, 114 S.Ct. 1307, 127 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994); Rodriguez v. SK & F Co., 833 F.2d 8, 9 (1st Cir.1987) (per curiam). For this reason, Bristol urges the court to hold that Mylan has failed to state a claim upon which relief can b......
  • Torres Vazquez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., No. Civ.99-2131(DRD).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 17 Febrero 2006
    ...Constr. Co., Inc., 860 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1065, 109 S.Ct. 2064, 104 L.Ed.2d 629 (1989); Rodriguez v. SK & F, Co., 833 F.2d 8, 9 (1st Cir.1987); Topp v. CompAir, Inc., 814 F.2d 830, 833-39 (1st Cir. 1987); Lugo-Vina v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 574 F.2d 41, 43-44 (1st Cir......
  • Talbott v. CR Bard, Inc., Civ. A. No. 94-10394.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 23 Agosto 1994
    ...in many cases finding that there is no private right of action under the FDCA. See Mendes, 18 F.3d at 19 n. 4; Rodriguez v. SK & F, Co., 833 F.2d 8, 9 (1st Cir.1987) (per curiam); Gile, 22 F.3d at 544; Pacific Trading Co. v. Wilson & Co., 547 F.2d 367, 370 (7th Cir.1976); Kemp, 835 F.Supp. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT