Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/1/12 REMANDING CASE to Sacramento Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

Kirby Smith,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Does
1 through 10, inclusive,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-02355-GEB-DAD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND*

13
14

Plaintiff moves to remand this case to the Superior Court of

15

California from which it was removed, arguing removal was improper since

16

diversity jurisdiction upon which removal was based does not exist.

17

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that removant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is

18

a national bank that is a citizen of California since its “corporate

19

headquarters are located” in San Francisco, California. (Pl.’s Mot. to

20

Remand 8:3, ECF No. 6.) Further, Plaintiff argues since Plaintiff is a

21

citizen

22

jurisdiction. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. counters that in light of its

23

status as a national bank, under 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (“section 1348”) it is

24

only a citizen of South Dakota. Further, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. asserts

25

in

26

jurisdiction because “Plaintiff is a citizen of California based on

its

of

California,

Notice

of

the

Removal

federal

that

the

court

lacks

federal

diversity

court

has

removal

diversity

27
28

*

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

domicile,

2

California. (Def.’s Not. of Removal 1:21, ECF No. 1.)

as

he

alleges

residency

.

.

.

in

Sacramento

County,”

3

For purposes of determining a national bank’s citizenship to

4

decide whether diversity jurisdiction exists, section 1348 prescribes:

5

“All national banking associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the

6

States in which they are respectively located.”

7

American Surety Co. v. Bank of California, 133 F.2d 160, 162 (9th Cir.

8

1943), interpreted the definition of “located” under “the predecessor

9

statute to 28 U.S.C. § 1348, [and] held that a national bank is located

10

in the State where it maintains its ‘principal place of business.’”

11

Guinto v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 11-cv-372-LKK, 2011 WL 4738519, 2011

12

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114986, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011) (citing American

13

Surety). This “holding[] [is] still binding on this court.” Id.

14

“Wells

15

California[,] it is a citizen of California.” Id. at *3.

16

Fargo

Bank,

Therefore,

N.A.

the

has

its

federal

principal

court

The Ninth Circuit in

place

lacks

of

Since

business

diversity

in

removal

17

jurisdiction, and this case is remanded to the Superior Court of

18

California in the County of Sacramento from which it was removed.

19

Dated:

November 1, 2012

20
21
22

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2