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
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?