tortious injury here, he presents no office address for LLNS here or any facts establishing that the LLNS offices here regu larly do business here. Moreover, merely alleging that LLNS has offices here does not establish under § 13^422 that the offices are LLNS’ principal place of business or that LLNS is domiciled here. See Lindsey v. Rice, Civil Action No. 05-219(RMC), 2005 WL 3275918, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2005) (finding that plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were domiciled in or maintained their principal places of business in the District of Columbia where the complaint “merely provide[d] mailing addresses in the caption” that were located in the District of Columbia); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192-1193, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Atwal’s complaint does not
holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center recognizing a cause of action against a corporations directors brought by a creditor for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporations financial condition holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities