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)

Download PDF
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

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?