PNC Bank, National Association v. North Star Trust Company

Filing 21

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 9/13/2012: Defendants Victor and Matilde Colindress motion to strike or dismiss plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A.s complaint 16 is denied. Status hearing set for 9/14/2012 is stricken and reset to 9/24/2012 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (jdh)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo

CASE NUMBER

12 C 1307

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

9/13/2012

PNC Bank, N.A. vs. North Star Trust Co., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants Victor and Matilde Colindres’s motion to strike or dismiss plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A.’s complaint
[16] is denied. Status hearing set for 9/14/2012 is stricken and reset to 9/24/2012 at 9:30 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Defendants Victor and Matilde Colindres (“defendants”) move to strike or dismiss the complaint for
foreclosure of mortgage filed by plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association (“PNC”). For the reasons given
below, that motion is denied.
Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Specifically, defendants contend that plaintiff has not alleged diversity of citizenship with
facts based on personal knowledge and has incorrectly pleaded the amount in controversy. These arguments
are without merit.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where
there is “complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants” and where the amount in controversy is
more than $75,000. See also Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Defendants first argue
that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege diversity of citizenship among the parties. Without citing to any
case law, defendants assert that because PNC conducts business in Illinois, plaintiff cannot establish
complete diversity. Defendants also argue that plaintiff has not alleged “factual detail to support [the]
conclusion” that defendants are Illinois citizens. Neither argument is persuasive. Plaintiff alleges that its
main office is in Pennsylvania, and “a national bank, for [28 U.S.C.] § 1348 purposes, is a citizen of the State
in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546
U.S. 303, 307 (2006). For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, then, plaintiff is a citizen of
Pennsylvania, as alleged in the complaint. Defendants fare no better in arguing that plaintiff has
insufficiently pleaded defendants’ Illinois citizenship.1 Defendants do not challenge the underlying factual
basis for plaintiff’s allegation that defendants are citizens of Illinois. Instead, they state in conclusory fashion
that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient factual detail. But defendants do not cite any support for the argument
that plaintiff should be held to a higher pleading standard in this case.
Defendants’ final argument is easily dismissed. In arguing that plaintiff has not alleged the necessary
amount in controversy, defendants’ motion focuses on the amount of past-due real estate taxes. However,
12C1307 PNC Bank, N.A. vs. North Star Trust Co., et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
they fail to account for the fact that plaintiff alleges that defendants stopped making monthly principal and
interest payments in addition to not paying the real estate taxes. According to the complaint, as a result of
defendants’ default, plaintiff accelerated the indebtedness and as of February 23, 2012, defendants owed a
total amount of $229,656.52. In support of their claim, plaintiff attached to their complaint a copy of the
Notice of Default and Acceleration sent to defendants. Defendants do not deny that the plaintiff accelerated
all amounts due nor do they raise a colorable challenge to the factual allegations in the complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is denied.
1. Defendants do not argue that defendant North Start Trust Company is not a citizen of Illinois.

12C1307 PNC Bank, N.A. vs. North Star Trust Co., et al.

Page 2 of 2