Sheree R Roberts v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et al

Filing 26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, as to whythis case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's respo nse to this Order shall identify: The main office location for those Defendants that Plaintiff identifies as national banks; the state of incorporation and the principal place of business for each of the corporate Defendants and those Defendants tha t are state-chartered banks; and Plaintiff's state of domicile. Plaintiff's response shall be filed by no later than Thursday, September 28, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. Failure to respond will result in the dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-05837 BRO (SKx)

Title

SHEREE R. ROBERTS V. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ET AL.

Date

September 22, 2017

Present: The Honorable

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Pro se Plaintiff Sheree R. Roberts (“Plaintiff”) filed her Complaint in this Court on
August 7, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter, “Compl.”).) In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
causes of action against Washington Mutual Bank, FA; Washington Mutual Bank FA,
U.S. Bank, NA as Trustee for Securitized Trust WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates 2000-WM2 Trust; Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Mortgage Electronic
Registration System; Caliber Home Loans, Inc.; and Master Participation Trust and
Quality Loan Service Corporation. (See Compl.) In Plaintiff’s jurisdictional statement in
her Complaint, Plaintiff fails to state an appropriate and specific basis for the Court’s
jurisdiction. (Compl. ¶ 1.)
A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction even if there is no objection to
it. Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because federal courts
are of limited jurisdiction, they possess original jurisdiction only as authorized by the
Constitution and federal statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
The first is federal question jurisdiction. Title 28 section 1331 of the United States Code
provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The
second is diversity jurisdiction. Title 28 section 1332 of the United States Code provides,
in relevant part, that a federal court has jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of
different States where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Because Plaintiff does not allege any causes of action arising under the Constitution or
the laws of the United States (see generally Compl.), Plaintiff must establish federal
jurisdiction based upon diversity jurisdiction.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-05837 BRO (SKx)

Title

SHEREE R. ROBERTS V. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ET AL.

Date

September 22, 2017

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the diversity jurisdiction statute
to require “complete diversity of citizenship,” meaning that each plaintiff must be diverse
from each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67–68 (1996). Under
section 1332(c), a corporation is a citizen of each state in which it is incorporated and in
the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). “The phrase
‘principal place of business’ refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, also called the ‘nerve center’
of the corporation, typically found at a corporation’s headquarters.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80–81 (2010). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a national
bank is deemed to be a citizen “only of the state in which its main office is located.”
Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that national
banks are not also citizens of the state in which they maintain a principal place of
business). The location of a national bank’s main office is designated in the bank’s
articles of association. See Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006). A
state-chartered bank, on the other hand, is treated the same as a corporation when
determining citizenship. Id. at 306; see also Rouse, 747 F.3d at 709 n.2. Accordingly, a
state-chartered bank is deemed to be a citizen of its state of incorporation, as well as the
state where it maintains its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

Plaintiff alleges that many of the Defendants “do[] business in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California[,]” but fails to set forth the location of the main offices for
those Defendants that Plaintiff identifies as national banks, or the state of incorporation or
principal place of business for the other corporate Defendants. (See Compl.) Without
this information, the Court cannot ascertain Defendants’ citizenship for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction.
Additionally, Plaintiff does not allege her state of citizenship. For individuals,
citizenship is determined by the place of domicile, not the state of residence. Kanter v.
Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A person’s domicile is her
permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends
to return. Id. A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and
thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Id.
Plaintiff’s only alleges that she is a resident of the County of Los Angeles, California
(Compl. ¶ 2); however, as stated above, citizenship is not determined by residency for
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-05837 BRO (SKx)

Title

SHEREE R. ROBERTS V. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ET AL.

Date

September 22, 2017

purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490
U.S. 30, 48 (1989). Plaintiff must allege the state in which she is domiciled in order for
the Court to determine her citizenship.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, as to why
this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s
response to this Order shall identify:
 the main office location for those Defendants that Plaintiff identifies as
national banks;
 the state of incorporation and the principal place of business for each of the
corporate Defendants and those Defendants that are state-chartered banks;
and
 Plaintiff’s state of domicile.
Plaintiff’s response shall be filed by no later than Thursday, September 28,
2017, at 12:00 p.m. Failure to respond will result in the dismissal of this action.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

rf

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 3