Saic Rojas v. America's Servicing Company et al

Filing 9

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/20/2012. SEE ORDER. (im)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

EDCV 12-01237 DMG (OPx)

Title Saic Rojas v. America’s Servicing Company, et al.
Present: The Honorable

August 13, 2012
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT
On July 30, 2012, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., and Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. removed this action from state court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Relying on Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797
(2006), Defendants assert that Wells Fargo, a national banking association, is solely a citizen of
the state in which its main headquarters are located. (Notice of Removal at 3 [Doc. # 1].) Thus,
Defendants maintain that Wells Fargo is solely a citizen of South Dakota because its main office
is in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. (Id.) Schmidt, however, expressly declined to hold that a
national banking association’s citizenship is limited to the state in which its main office is
located as set forth in its articles of association. 546 U.S. at 315 n.8.
On January 13, 2012, this Court issued a decision in Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB,
No. CV 11-00928 DMG (DTBx), 2012 WL 174206, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6962 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
13, 2012) [Doc. # 43], in which it found that because Wells Fargo’s principal place of business is
in California, it is also a citizen of the state of California. The Court thereupon remanded the
case to state court. Given that Plaintiff is also a California citizen (see Notice of Removal at 3)
and pursuant to this Court’s reasoning in Rouse, it appears that the parties are not completely
diverse.
Therefore, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not
be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants shall file their response on or
before August 20, 2012. All deadlines are stayed pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv