Trustmark National Bank v. Edwards Properties, LTD. et al
ORDERED: (1) Dfts' 25 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with leave to re-file, if and when appropriate; and, (2) Plf shall file a second amended complaint on or before 1/30/2012, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/19/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK,
EDWARDS PROPERTIES, LTD.,
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-534-MEF [WO]
Section 1332 requires complete diversity; therefore, each defendant must be a citizen
of a different state than each plaintiff. Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d
1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). National banks are “corporate entities chartered not by any
State, but by the Comptroller of the Currency of the U.S. Treasury.” Wachovia Bank v.
Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 1348 states that “[a]ll national banking
associations shall, for the purposes of all other actions by or against them, be deemed citizens
of the States in which they are respectively located.” Id. In Wachovia Bank, the Supreme
Court “h[e]ld that a national bank, for § 1348 purposes, is a citizen of the State in which its
main office, as set forth in its articles of incorporation, is located.” 546 U.S. at 307 (emphasis
Trustmark alleges that it “is a nationally-chartered banking institution with its
principal place of business in Mississippi.” (Am. Ver. Compl. ¶ 1.) The Supreme Court
noted in Wachovia Bank that a national bank’s main office and its principal place of business
coincide in almost every case. Id. at 317 & n.9; cf. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN,
LLC, 653 F.3d 702, 708 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that “[b]ecause Wells Fargo’s main office
is in a state other than that of its principal place of business, we must consider the outlier
scenario identified in footnote nine of Wachovia Bank” and later “hold[ing] that . . . a
national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located”); see also
Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006) (main office only). On
account of the fact that Wachovia Bank identifies the national bank’s main office as the
relevant location for citizenship purposes, and because recent appellate court decisions
interpreting Wachovia Bank have held that a national bank’s principal place of business is
not its location for citizenship purposes, the Court concludes that Trustmark’s jurisdictional
allegations are presently lacking.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED with leave to re-file, if and when
Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or before January 30,
2012. Failure to file a second amended complaint within the prescribed time
period will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
DONE this 19th day of January, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?