Citibank, N.A. v. Najda et al
Filing
490
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. OPINION AND ORDER. (de Oliveira, Flaviana)
Case 1:14-cv-13593-GAO Document 490 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13593-GAO
CITIBANK, N.A., not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as
Separate Trustee for PMT NPL FINANCING 2015-1,
Plaintiff,
v.
RENEE ANNA NAJDA, a/k/a RENEE NAJDA, and ANDREW NAJDA,
Defendants and Counterclaimants,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A., not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as
Separate Trustee for PMT NPL FINANCING 2015-1, and CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
February 27, 2023
O’TOOLE, D.J.
On September 9, 2014, Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for the Benefit of SWDNSI Trust Series
2010-3, brought suit against Renee Anna and Andrew Najda to foreclose on real property located
at 71 Flint Road in Concord, Massachusetts. Subject matter jurisdiction in this Court was based on
diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The case was tried to a jury and to the Court in
November 2017, with both finding against the Najdas on the various claims and counterclaims.
The Najdas appealed and the appeal is pending. In December 2022, the Court of Appeals remanded
the case to this Court for a determination as to whether minimal or complete diversity between the
parties existed at the time the action was commenced, with instructions that the Court address both
“statutory diversity” and “constitutional diversity.”
The complaint alleges that Citibank is chartered under the National Bank Act with a usual
place of business in New York and that it commenced the action solely in its capacity as trustee
Case 1:14-cv-13593-GAO Document 490 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 3
for the benefit of SWDNSI Trust Series 2010-3, a Delaware Statutory Trust (“the Trust”). The
complaint further alleges that the Najdas are individuals who reside at the subject property in
Massachusetts. In their answer and counterclaim, the Najdas admitted they resided at the property
in Massachusetts and answered that they were without sufficient information or knowledge to
admit or deny the allegations as to Citibank’s citizenship. However, in their counterclaim, the
allegations as to the citizenship of Citibank mirror Citibank’s allegations.
There is no dispute that the Najdas were citizens of Massachusetts at time the action
commenced. The only question is the citizenship of Citibank in its capacity as trustee for the Trust
at the time the action was commenced. Citibank contends that, as a trustee filing suit in its own
name, its citizenship is what controls for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The Najdas, acting pro
se, contend that Citibank is a passive trustee without control over the Trust, and therefore it is the
citizenship of each of the Trust beneficiaries that controls.
“[W]hen a trustee files a lawsuit or is sued in her own name, her citizenship is all that
matters for diversity purposes.” Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378, 383
(2016) (citing Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 462–466 (1980)); accord id. at 382
(“[W]hen a trustee files a lawsuit in her name, her jurisdictional citizenship is the State to which
she belongs.” (emphasis omitted)). Further, to the extent it is necessary to analyze Citibank’s role
as trustee at the time of filing, it was clear from evidence adduced at the trial that Citibank had the
customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others. See Navarro,
446 U.S. at 464; see also U.S. Bank Tr., N.A., as Tr. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr. v.
Dedoming, 308 F. Supp. 3d 579, 580 (D. Mass. 2018); McLarnon v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.,
as Tr. for HarborView Mortg. Loan Tr. Mortg. Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5,
Civil Action No. 15-11799-FDS, 2015 WL 4207127, at *2–3 (D. Mass. July 10, 2015). Citibank
brought suit solely in its capacity as the trustee of the Trust, and it acted for the benefit of the Trust
2
Case 1:14-cv-13593-GAO Document 490 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 3
in prosecuting the action. Consequently, Citibank’s citizenship controls for the purposes of the
diversity analysis. Citibank’s assertion that its usual place of business was New York was
reasserted by the Najdas in their own pleadings. It was a citizen of New York for diversity
purposes. See Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006).
With respect to both “constitutional diversity” and “statutory diversity,” the case at the
commencement of the action was “between Citizens of different States.” See U.S. Const. art. III,
§ 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Based on the pleadings, the Najdas were citizens of Massachusetts
and Citibank was not. Accordingly, there was complete diversity of citizenship of the parties.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?