Redding

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm the district court’s holding that diversity is lacking between Hitachi America, Ltd. (“Hitachi”) and Plaintiffs. Hitachi’s statement in its answer that “the citizenship of the litigants is diverse” is not a factual admission. See Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 322, 327 , 22 L.Ed. 823 (1874); see also Sicor Ltd. v. Cetus Corp., 51 F.3d 848, 859-60 (9th Cir.1995). Instead, Hitachi’s statement regarding diversity merely constitutes a waiver or stipulation which cannot form the basis for jurisdiction. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002); Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir.1997).

Also, the district court correctly applied the “place of operations test” as outlined in Tosco Corp. v. Cmtys. for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.2001), to find that Hitachi’s principal place of business is California. While Hitachi’s admission in its answer, its use of New York as its principal place of business in past diversity cases, and its listing of New York as its principal place of business in several filings with state governments are troubling, the evidence clearly…