Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/295

 546US1

84

Unit: $U10

[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN

LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. v. ROCHE Opinion of the Court

joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which [the] action [was] brought.” § 1441(b). Christophe and Juanita Roche, plaintiffs below, respond­ ents here, are citizens of Virginia. They commenced suit in state court against diverse defendants, including Lincoln Property Company (Lincoln), a corporation chartered and having its principal place of business in Texas. The defend­ ants removed the litigation to a Federal District Court where, after discovery proceedings, they successfully moved for summary judgment. Holding the removal improper, the Court of Appeals instructed remand of the action to state court. 373 F. 3d 610, 620–622 (CA4 2004). The appellate court so ruled on the ground that the Texas defendant failed to show the nonexistence of an afﬁliated Virginia entity that was the “real party in interest.” Id., at 622. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. De­ fendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State. It is not incumbent on the named defendants to negate the existence of a potential defendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity.1 I Christophe and Juanita Roche leased an apartment in the Westﬁeld Village complex in Fairfax County, Virginia. 1 Defendants below, petitioners here, presented a second question in their petition for certiorari: Can a limited partnership be deemed a citizen of a State on the sole ground that the partnership’s business activities bear a “very close nexus” with the State? Because no partnership is or need be a party to this action, that question is not live for adjudication. We note, however, that our prior decisions do not regard as relevant to subject-matter jurisdiction the locations at which partnerships conduct business. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 189, 192–197 (1990) (for diversity purposes, a partnership entity, unlike a corporation, does not rank as a citizen; to meet the complete diversity requirement, all partners, limited as well as general, must be diverse from all parties on the opposing side).