Bedalla v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Motion to Dismiss (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

1
2
3
4

E-FILED on

11/8/12

5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

JOSE MANUEL BEDALLA,

13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 12-cv-02307-RMW

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., organized and
existing under laws of New York,
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., is
organized and exists under the laws of the State
of Texas,

[Re Docket No. 9, 24]

Defendants.

19
20

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure

22

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to

23

defendant's motion. Having considered the papers submitted, the court finds the matter suitable for

24

disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing set for November 9, 2012. The court

25

further grants defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) with leave to amend.

26

I. BACKGROUND

27

On May 8, 2012, plaintiff filed his complaint relating to the foreclosure of his property.

28

Plaintiff brings solely state law causes of action against defendants and alleges that defendants

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Re Docket No. 9, 24] —No. 12-cv-02307-RMW
JLC

1

improperly foreclosed because defendants do not possess the original note. Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.) at

2

4-5. Plaintiff further claims that the deed of trust on his property was invalid because it was

3

transferred to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System ("MERS") as a nominee beneficiary,

4

causing the note on the property and the deed of trust to be separated. Id. Plaintiff, a domiciliary of

5

California, asserts that this court has diversity jurisdiction because BANA is a New York citizen and

6

he alleges that defendant ReconTrust, N.A. ("ReconTrust") is a Texas citizen. Id. at 1-2. On August

7

16, 2012, BANA brought the instant motion to dismiss.1

8

II. ANALYSIS

9

BANA claims that, contrary to plaintiff's assertions in the complaint, ReconTrust is a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

California citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and therefore subject matter jurisdiction

11

does not exist.

12

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in

13

controversy exceeds $75,000 and no defendant party shares citizenship in the same state as the

14

plaintiff. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) (citing

15

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)). For the purposes of diversity

16

jurisdiction, national banking associations are "deemed citizens of the States in which they are

17

respectively located." 28 U.S.C. § 1348. A national banking association is "located" in "the State in

18

which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located." Wachovia Bank v.

19

Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 1348).

20

Here, ReconTrust is a national banking association with its designated main office in Simi

21

Valley, California. Dkt. No. 24-3, Ex. A at 1 (amended articles of association); see also Rodriguez

22

v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 11-1877, 2012 WL 2375833, at *3 (D. Nev. June 21, 2012) (finding

23

ReconTrust to be a California citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). Accordingly, there is

24

no diversity of citizenship between ReconTrust and plaintiff and, as a result, no subject matter

25

jurisdiction by which this court may act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Wachovia Bank, 546 U.S. at 307.

26

The court thus dismisses plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) with leave to amend. See Grupo

27
28

1

The original motion was noticed in front of Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal. On September 25,
2012, the matter was reassigned to this court. BANA renoticed the motion on October 5, 2012.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Re Docket No. 9, 24] —No. 12-cv-02307-RMW
JLC
2

1

Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 572 (2004) (plaintiff may correct a jurisdictional

2

defect by amending the complaint to dismiss a non-diverse party). Based on this disposition, the

3

court does not reach defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

4

III. ORDER

5

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(1) and

6

dismisses the complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiff 30 days from the date of this order to

7

amend his complaint. Plaintiff's failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a

8

dismissal of his case with prejudice.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

DATED:

November 8, 2012
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Re Docket No. 9, 24] —No. 12-cv-02307-RMW
JLC
3