Luellen v. Wells Fargo Bank, a National Association
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/24/2012. This action is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendant's Motions to 11 to Dismiss and 12 to Strike are DENIED as MOOT. This case is CLOSED. [cc: Sacramento Superior Court] (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LADANA LUELLEN,
11
Plaintiff,
12
No. CIV S-12-1121 KJM CKD
v.
13
WELLS FARGO BANK,
14
ORDER
Defendants.
______________________________/
15
16
Plaintiff filed her complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court on April 2,
17
2012, alleging four causes of action for violation of California state and common law. (Not. of
18
Removal, ECF 1.) Defendant removed the action to this court on April 26, 2012 citing diversity
19
as the court’s basis for jurisdiction. (Id.) Defendant contends it is a citizen of only South
20
Dakota, the state where its main office is located. (Id. at 3.)
21
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged by either party or raised sua
22
sponte by the court. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3); see also Ruhrgas AG v.
23
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583-84 (1983). “If at any time before final judgment it appears
24
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
25
§ 1447(c). The federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), provides: “[A]ny civil action
26
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
1
1
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the
2
United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
3
This court has original jurisdiction over cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds
4
$75,000 and the parties are completely diverse. The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the
5
removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
6
1992) (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l
7
Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985)). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there
8
is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica
9
Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). There is a “strong presumption” against
10
removal jurisdiction, which “means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that
11
removal is proper.” Id.
12
Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Plaintiff names fifty (50) Doe defendants.
13
“The citizenship of fictitious defendants is disregarded for removal purposes . . . .” Soliman v.
14
Philip Morris, Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1348, national
15
banking associations shall “be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively
16
located.” Relying on Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006), defendant contends it is
17
only “located” in South Dakota, where its main office is located. Whether a national bank is
18
“located” in the state where it maintains its principal place of business is an issue that has led to
19
splits both within the circuit and between circuits, which the Ninth Circuit has declined to
20
address. See Peralta v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 784, 785 (9th Cir.
21
2010). This court finds persuasive the reasoning of Taheny v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which
22
held that in light of Ninth Circuit case law, Wells Fargo is a citizen of California. See No. CIV.
23
S-10-2123 LKK/EFB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47195 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012) (confirming prior
24
decision in Guinto v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. CIV S-11-372 LKK/GGH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
25
114986 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011), and finding that in the Ninth Circuit a national bank is a citizen
26
of the state where it maintains its principal place of business); see also Humburg v. Wells Fargo
2
1
Bank, N.A., CIV No. S-12- 0999 KJM-CKD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123842, at *4 nn. 2 and 3
2
(E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012). As a result, complete diversity is absent and this court lacks
3
jurisdiction.
4
Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Sacramento County
5
Superior Court. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 11) and motion to strike (ECF 12) are
6
denied as moot. This case is CLOSED.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 24, 2012.
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?