The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable R. Gary Klausner, U.S. District Judge
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams (Not Present) 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 DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On November 7, 2012, Bernice Huff ("Plaintiff"), in pro se, filed this action against Wells Fargo Bank, WMC Mortgage Corp., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, GE Money Bank, NDEX West, LLC, and Barrett Daffin Treder and Weiss (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff, a California citizen, alleges only state law claims arising out the foreclosure of real property located in Torrance, California.
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 at least included the state of the bank's primary office as listed in its articles of association and did not include every state in which the bank had a branch office. The Court left unanswered the question of whether the term also included 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 association and the state of its primary place of business.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Wells Fargo is a citizen of both South Dakota and California. As such, complete diversity is lacking between the parties. Since there is no other basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...