Nevanka Hahn v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al
Filing
16
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: The Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura. This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to FRCP 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Letter of Transmittal - Remand to Superior Court) (jp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-13-9080-MWF (JEMx)
Date: February 25, 2014
Title:
Nevanka Hahn -v- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez
Court Reporter:
Not Reported
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER REMANDING ACTION
On November 4, 2013, Plaintiff Nevanka Hahn initiated this action by filing a
Complaint in Ventura County Superior Court. (Docket No. 1, Ex. A). On December
9, 2013, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), Wachovia
Mortgage FSB, and Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC (the “Removal”). (Docket No.
1).
This Court is cognizant of the case of Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, Case
No. 12-55278 (“Rouse”), pending before the Ninth Circuit, in which Wells Fargo’s
citizenship is in issue. The Court stayed the present action for 30 days on January 22,
2014, in anticipation of a possible decision in Rouse. (Docket No. 15). Not knowing
when the Ninth Circuit will rule in Rouse, the Court now determines subject matter
jurisdiction so that litigation may proceed.
This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over a removed action. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell &
Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a district court has the
power to remand a case sua sponte when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
Defendants assert federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Removal at 2). It appears that the
amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. (See Removal at 21-22). Plaintiff and
Wells Fargo, however, are not diverse.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-13-9080-MWF (JEMx)
Date: February 25, 2014
Title:
Nevanka Hahn -v- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Wells Fargo is a national banking association, and its main office (according to
its articles of association) is located in South Dakota. (See Removal at 3).
Consequently, Wells Fargo argues that, for purposes of diversity under 28 U.S.C. §
1332, it is a citizen of South Dakota, and only South Dakota. (See id.).
“However, [28 U.S.C. § 1348] does not define where national banks are
‘located’ for purposes of jurisdiction, nor is such a definition obvious.” Martinez v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 946 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2013). The United States
Supreme Court has “rejected an interpretation of § 1348 that national banks are citizens
of every state in which they have a branch and instead determined ‘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.’” Id. (quoting Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt,
546 U.S. 303, 307, 126 S. Ct. 941, 163 L. Ed. 2d 797 (2006)). But the Supreme Court
“did not reach the question of whether a national bank may also be a citizen of the state
in which its principal place of business is located, specifically leaving that question
unresolved.” Id. at 1013-14 (citing Schmidt, 546 U.S. at 317 n.9) (emphasis in
original).
In sum, “Schmidt left open the door to either of two interpretations, that a
national bank is a citizen of: (1) only its state of association (the state in which its main
office is listed in its articles of association); or (2) both its state of association and the
state in which its principal place of business is located.” Id. at 1014 (citation omitted);
see also Am. Surety Co. v. Bank of Cal., 133 F.2d 160, 162 (9th Cir. 1943) (“[T]he
States in which they (national banking associations) are respectively located are those
states in which their principal places of business are maintained.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The district courts in the Ninth Circuit are divided on this issue. In Martinez, for
example, the district court “conclude[d] American Surety remains binding precedent
and join[ed] the ranks of an increasing number of courts within the Ninth Circuit so
holding.” Martinez, 946 F. Supp. 2d at 1017 (citing cases). As a result, the district
court found that Wells Fargo was a citizen of California where its principal place of
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-13-9080-MWF (JEMx)
Date: February 25, 2014
Title:
Nevanka Hahn -v- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
business is located, and remanded the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at
1024.
This Court joins the ranks of courts cited in Martinez and finds that Wells Fargo
is a citizen of both California and South Dakota. Because Plaintiff is also a citizen of
California (see Removal at 2), the real parties in interest in this action are not diverse,
and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura.
This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to
treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
3
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?