Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohammad Hakam sued his former employer, Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc., along with Cameron Rouns and Does 1 through 50, in Orange County Superior Court on July 13, 2026. He asserted violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, wrongful termination, breach of contract, and related state-law claims. The order does not test those allegations. On August 26, 2026, defendants removed the case on diversity grounds. They asserted that at filing and at removal Hakam was a California citizen and Rouns was a Utah citizen. They also asserted that Fieldpiece was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business at its Kamas, Utah office, making it a citizen of both Delaware and Utah.
Hakam moved to remand on September 18, 2026, arguing that Fieldpiece's principal place of business is in California, which would defeat complete diversity. He did not contest the amount in controversy or Rouns's Utah citizenship. Defendants opposed on October 6 and Hakam replied on October 12. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the October 27, 2026 hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court framed the sole question as whether Fieldpiece's principal place of business was in California or Utah when the complaint was filed and when the case was removed. It reiterated that the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by competent proof and that doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand. Applying the Supreme Court's nerve center test from Hertz Corp. v. Friend, it looked to where the company's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. Relevant considerations include where the chief executive resides and keeps an office, where other officers reside, where high-level decisions are made, and where finance and accounting are performed.
Defendants offered two declarations from Fieldpiece's Chief Commercial Officer. They stated that the Utah office houses the executive and administrative offices and that most executive functions are directed from there. According to the declarations, the CEO, CFO, Chief Strategy and People Officer, in-house counsel, and Vice President of Engineering live and work in Utah. Out-of-state executives travel to Utah for key decisions on strategy, budgeting, talent reviews, risk mitigation, and supply chain. Nine of the company's eleven recent quarterly leadership and strategy meetings were held in Utah.
The court rejected each of Hakam's counterarguments. First, the company's largest office is in Orange, California, but the test asks where leadership makes decisions, not where most operations occur. Second, the company website listed a California address, but the same page also listed Utah and Georgia locations. Third, the California Secretary of State filing listing a California principal address is not enough by itself under decisions from this district. Fourth, the fact that four of ten executive team members lived in California during Hakam's employment is irrelevant, because diversity is measured at filing and removal. On the totality of the evidence, the court found Kamas, Utah to be the nerve center, concluded that complete diversity exists, and denied the motion. It also denied Hakam's requests for jurisdictional discovery and attorney's fees, without separate explanation.
Key Takeaways
- Under the nerve center test, a corporation's principal place of business is where its senior officers actually direct and coordinate the business, not where it has its largest office or workforce.
- Officer declarations describing where executives live and work, where leadership meetings are held, and where key decisions are made can satisfy a removing defendant's burden.
- A website listing several offices, or a single Secretary of State filing listing a California address, does not by itself establish a corporation's nerve center.
- Citizenship for diversity purposes is measured at the time of filing and at removal, so where executives lived during the plaintiff's earlier employment does not control.
- The order resolves only jurisdiction. Denial of remand leaves Hakam's FEHA and contract claims pending in federal court, with no ruling on their merits.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported in-chambers minute order from a single district judge, so it carries little precedential weight. It is useful mainly as an example of how Central District courts apply the Hertz nerve center test when an employer has its biggest office in California but its executives are elsewhere. It shows that detailed declarations about executive residence, office use, and meeting locations can carry a removing employer's burden even when the plaintiff points to the employer's large California presence and state filings.
The order also shows what a remand motion needs to succeed. Evidence about office size, public listings, and past executive residence did not overcome the defendants' showing about where executives were working at the relevant dates. The court denied jurisdictional discovery and fees without elaboration, so the order offers little guidance on when those requests might be granted in other cases.