Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Last updated

Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 19, 2016
Decided March 7, 2016
Full case nameAmericold Realty Trust, Petitioner v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.
Docket no. 14–1382
Citations577 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1012; 194 L. Ed. 2d 71
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 776 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 27 (2015).
Holding
For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a real estate investment trust should be determined by the citizenship of its shareholders when the real estate investment trust is "held and managed for the benefit and profit of any person who may become a shareholder"
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 1332

Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified rules for determining whether a federal court may exercise diversity jurisdiction in cases involving unincorporated organizations. [1] The case began as a contract dispute between food producers and a warehouse owner when millions of tons of stored food were destroyed in a warehouse fire. [2] A federal trial court initially ruled in favor of the warehouse owner, but on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the federal district court may not have had jurisdiction. [3] The Tenth Circuit held that the warehouse owner, a real estate investment trust ("REIT"), should be treated as an unincorporated organization and the district court should not be allowed to exercise diversity jurisdiction without examining the citizenship of the members of the real estate investment trust. [3] The warehouse owner appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split "regarding the citizenship of unincorporated entities." [3]

Contents

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor held that for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a real estate investment trust should be determined by the citizenship of its shareholders when the real estate investment trust is "held and managed for the benefit and profit of any person who may become a shareholder". [4] Although some commentators have suggested that the Court's ruling is "unlikely to have any broad or long-term impact", [5] others have stated that the Court's ruling "means that REITs like Americold will have a much harder time getting (or keeping) their cases in federal court." [6]

Background

Federal diversity jurisdiction

United States district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, but a federal statute permits district courts to hear cases when the parties are citizens of different states. [7] This form of jurisdiction is known as "diversity jurisdiction". [8] In the mid-nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has clarified that for the purposes of determining citizenship, a corporation should be considered a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated. [9] Congress later codified this rule in statute and also expanded this definition so that corporations are also considered citizens of the state in which that corporation operates its primary place of business. [10] However, for unincorporated entities, the citizenship of those entities is determined by the citizenship of its members. [11] When individuals own stock in an unincorporated organization, the shareholders function as the "members" of that organization. [12]

Initial lawsuit and appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

The case began as a contract dispute that arose when food owned by ConAgra Foods and other corporations was destroyed in a 1991 underground warehouse fire in Kansas City, Kansas. [13] The corporations sued the warehouse's owner, which is now known as Americold Realty Trust, in a state court in Kansas. [13] The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, and the district court ultimately ruled in favor of Americold. [13] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. [3] The parties argued that the district court could assert diversity jurisdiction in this case because the parties were citizens of different states, but the Tenth Circuit disagreed. [3] The Tenth Circuit held that the citizenship of the corporate plaintiffs should be determined according to "where they were chartered and had their principal places of business", but that Americold (a real estate investment trust) should be considered a citizen of every state in which its shareholders were citizens. [3] [upper-alpha 1] Because there was "no record of the citizenship of Americold’s shareholders", the Tenth Circuit ruled that the parties had failed to prove they were citizens of different states. [3] Americold appealed the Tenth Circuit's ruling, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split "regarding the citizenship of unincorporated entities." [3]

Opinion of the Court

In a unanimous opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities." Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe.jpg
In a unanimous opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities."

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor held that real estate investment trusts, as defined by Maryland law, should be treated like other unincorporated entities when determining diversity jurisdiction. [16] Consequently, Justice Sotomayor ruled that "diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on the citizenship of all its members." [17] Because Maryland real estate investment trusts are unincorporated organizations "in which property is held and managed for the benefit and profit of any person who may become a shareholder”, Justice Sotomayor explained that shareholders of Maryland real estate investment trusts "appear to be in the same position as the shareholders of a joint-stock company or the partners of a limited partnership — both of whom we viewed as members of their relevant entities." [18] Therefore, for the purposes of determining whether diversity of citizenship exists, Justice Sotomayor held that "Americold’s members include its shareholders." [19]

Commentary and analysis

In his analysis of the case for SCOTUSblog , Ronald Mann wrote that the case "seems most unlikely to have any broad or long-term impact" and that the "most likely fate" of the case "is an occasional appearance in the footnotes of casebooks and treatises on federal courts." [5] Mann also observed that "Chief Justice John Roberts has not yet assigned any major opinions to Sotomayor, and this case leaves that pattern intact." [5] Amy Howe also wrote that the Court's ruling "means that REITs like Americold will have a much harder time getting (or keeping) their cases in federal court." [6]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The Tenth Circuit held that the citizenship of a "non-corporate artificial entity" should be determined according to the citizenship of its members or shareholders. [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, federal courts will normally lack the jurisdiction to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (will) courts over tort claims under state common law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith. Smith won the case, but unsolved issues regarding her inheritance eventually led to another Supreme Court case, Stern v. Marshall. She died before that case was decided.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in the wake of the decision in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York that signified a high deference to state law in choice of law issues for federal courts sitting in diversity.

Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred a California resident from bringing suit against an Austrian railroad in federal district court. The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. She then filed a lawsuit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged the railroad was responsible for causing her injuries. Because the railroad was owned by the Austrian government, the railroad claimed that the lawsuit should be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides immunity to foreign sovereigns in tort suits filed in the United States. In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States.

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when arbitration provisions in contracts are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. In a 6–3 opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court reversed a decision by the California Court of Appeal that refused to enforce an arbitration agreement between DIRECTV and its customers. The California Court had ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because, under applicable California law, a class action arbitration waiver between DIRECTV and its customers was unenforceable. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the California Court of Appeal's interpretation was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, and the California Court of Appeal was therefore required to enforce the arbitration agreement.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–0, that the jurisdictional test established by §27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the same as 28 U.S.C. § 1331's test for deciding if a case "arises under" a federal law.

Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because jurisdictional determinations constitute "final agency action". For a federal agency decision or action to be reviewable in court under the Administrative Procedures Act, it must be a “final” agency action, meaning that there are no further steps that can be taken before it has an impact on the legal rights or obligations of any affected parties.

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified whether Fannie Mae can be sued in state courts. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the constitutionality of the exclusion of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that as Congress had been granted broad oversight of United States territories by Article Four of the United States Constitution, the exclusion of the territories by Congress from programs like Supplemental Security Income did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14–1382, 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 4 (2016) (internal quotations omitted).
  2. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 1; Amy Howe, Trusts and citizenship: It is an easy question for the Court, Howe on the Court (Mar. 7, 2016) (noting that "millions of tons" of food were destroyed).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Americold, slip op. at 2.
  4. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 1–4, 6 (internal quotations omitted).
  5. 1 2 3 Ronald Mann, Opinion analysis: Justices choose bright-line rule limiting diversity jurisdiction over business trusts, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 7, 2016).
  6. 1 2 Amy Howe, Trusts and citizenship: It is an easy question for the Court, Howe on the Court (Mar. 7, 2016).
  7. ↑ 28 U.S.C.   § 1332.
  8. ↑ See generally George W. Ball, Revision of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction, 28 Ill. L. Rev. 356 (1933).
  9. ↑ See Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. (2 How. ) 497, 558 (1844).
  10. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (1958 ed.)).
  11. ↑ Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990).
  12. ↑ See Carden, 494 U.S. at 189–90.
  13. 1 2 3 Americold, slip op. at 1.
  14. ↑ ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 776 F.3d 1175, 1180–81 (2015) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990)).
  15. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 6 (citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 190) (internal citations omitted).
  16. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 3.
  17. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 3 (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990)) (internal quotations and modifications omitted).
  18. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 3 (citing Md. Corp. & Assns. Code Ann. §§ 8–704(b)(5), 8–101(d) (2014)) (internal quotations omitted).
  19. ↑ Americold, slip op. at 4.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.