Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/297

 546US1

86

Unit: $U10

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

LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. v. ROCHE Opinion of the Court

invoking that court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(a)(1), 1441(a). The notice of removal described Lincoln as a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, INVESCO as a Delaware corpora­ tion with its principal place of business in Georgia, and State of Wisconsin Investment Board as an independent agency of Wisconsin. App. 81. In their consolidated federal-court complaint, the Roches identiﬁed themselves as citizens of Virginia and Lincoln as a corporation headquartered in Texas, just as they did in their state-court complaints. Id., at 27, 53, 114–115.2 Further, they stated afﬁrmatively that the federal court “has jurisdiction of this matter.” Id., at 114. Lincoln, in its answer to the complaint, admitted that, through its regional ofﬁces, “it manages Westﬁeld Village.” Id., at 137, 138. Lincoln did not seek to avoid liability by asserting that some other entity was responsible for manag­ ing the property. In both their state- and federal-court complaints, the Roches stated that, “[u]pon further discovery in this case,” they would “determine if additional defendant or defendants will be named.” Id., at 28, 54, 116. Although they engaged in some discovery concerning Lincoln’s afﬁliates, their efforts in this regard were not extensive, Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 14, 38–39, 48–49, 53, and at no point did they seek to join any additional defendant. After discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, noting that it would set forth its reasons in a forthcoming memorandum order. App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a–21a. The promised memorandum order 2

Some weeks after the removal, the District Court dismissed INVESCO as a defendant. App. 112. Nothing turns on the presence or absence of INVESCO as a defending party. State of Wisconsin Invest­ ment Board, alleged owner of Westﬁeld Village, remains a defendant­ petitioner. Its status as a Wisconsin citizen for diversity purposes is not currently contested.