UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 4, 2013
TITLE: TOM KRAMFORD, ET AL.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Nancy Boehme N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. 30-2013-00622558, AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly known as World Savings Bank, FSB ("Wells Fargo"), removed this action from the Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2013-00622558, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) In its Notice of Removal, Wells Fargo asserts that Plaintiffs are citizens of California and that Wells Fargo is a citizen of South Dakota. (Id. at 2-3.) Specifically, Wells Fargo asserts that under Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006), and its progeny, a national banking association is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located. (Id. at 3.) For the reasons set forth in this Court's Remand Order in David Tran v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al., No. 5:12-cv-0016-JST (OPx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2012), Doc. 15, the Court disagrees with Wells Fargo's reading of Schmidt, and concludes that a national bank is also a citizen of the state in which its principal place of business is located. Therefore, Wells Fargo is a citizen of California, and the requirement of complete diversity is not met.
Normally, the Court would issue an order to show cause: re subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether any facts in this case would require a different result. However, in every case in which Wells Fargo has asserted diversity jurisdiction, the Court has concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and no facts appear that would change the result here. Moreover, the status quo will be maintained upon remand in light of the TRO issued by the Superior Court before removal. (See Doc. 11 at 33-34.)*fn1
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2013-00622558. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. 8), and the hearing set for March 15, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. is VACATED.
Initials of Preparer: nkb