UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 13, 2012
TITLE LIRA ANGEL, ET AL
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On July 30, 2012, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removed this action from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Relying on Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006), Wells Fargo asserts that as a national banking association it is solely a citizen of the state in which its main headquarters are located. (Notice of Removal at 6 [Doc. # 1].) Thus, Wells Fargo maintains that it is solely a citizen of South Dakota because its articles of association designate its headquarters in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. (Id. at 6, Ex. H.) Schmidt, however, expressly declined to hold that a national banking association's citizenship is limited to the state in which its main office is located as set forth in its articles of association. 546 U.S. at 315 n.8.
On January 13, 2012, this Court issued a decision in Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, No. CV 11-00928 DMG (DTBx), 2012 WL 174206, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6962 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012) [Doc. # 43], in which it found that because Wells Fargo's principal place of business is in California, it is also a citizen of the state of California. The Court thereupon remanded the case to state court. Given that Plaintiffs are also California citizens (see Notice of Removal at 2) and pursuant to this Court's reasoning in Rouse, it appears that the parties are not diverse.
Therefore, Wells Fargo is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Wells Fargo shall file its response on or before August 20, 2012. All deadlines are stayed pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.