Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells Fargo Bank Na v. Edward Derek Schaper R. Gary Klausner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 7, 2012

WELLS FARGO BANK NA
v.
EDWARD DEREK SCHAPER R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Sharon L. Williams

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Dismissing Case for Lack of Subject

Matter Jurisdiction

On April 11, 2012, Wells Fargo Bank ("Plaintiff") filed the present action for breach of promissory note against Edward Derek Schaper ("Defendant") in this Court. Plaintiff bases jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship as provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires that all parties to the action are completely diverse in citizenship, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. National banks are citizens of "the States in which they are respectively located." 28 U.S.C. § 1348. In Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006), the Supreme Court held that the term "located" in § 1348 includes at least the state of the bank's primary office as listed in its articles of association, but does not include every state in which the bank had a branch office. The Court left unanswered the question of whether the "located" also includes the state in which the bank has its primary place of business. Schmidt, 546 U.S. at 315 n.8. This Court finds that based on the legislative history of the jurisdiction and citizenship statutes, that a national bank is located, and therefore a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, in the state of its articles of association and the state of its primary place of business. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of both South Dakota and California. Complete diversity is lacking between the parties and jurisdiction is not proper in this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120507

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.