Banks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (KJac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOSHIA BANKS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-10967
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

WELLS FARGO BANK NA,
OTIS WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION
In order to buy a home in Detroit, Doshia Banks entered into an installment land contract
with the Williams Family Trust. The Williams Family Trust represented to Banks that the Trust
owned the home. But Banks soon discovered that Wells Fargo actually held title to the home.
Now Banks has filed suit pro se against Wells Fargo and the Williams Family Trust
alleging what appear to be state law claims. Banks says diversity jurisdiction exists because the
parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (PageID.3.)
Banks says Wells Fargo is a California corporation, PageID.4, and offers a Louisiana Address for
the Williams Family Trust. (PageID.2.)
Wells Fargo answered and, seeking to quiet title, filed a cross complaint against the Trust,
a counterclaim against Banks, and a third-party claim against Ernest Cornelius (a prior owner of
the home) and Otis Williams III (a possible affiliate of the trust). (PageID.7.) Wells Fargo also
says diversity jurisdiction exists, in part, because the Williams Family Trust “is an entity that
conducts business in the state of Michigan and/or in the state of Louisiana.” (Id.)

Neither Banks nor Wells Fargo properly pleaded the citizenship of the Williams Family
Trust, so the Court ordered the parties to explain the basis for diversity jurisdiction. (PageID.95.)
In particular, the Court asked the parties to identify the type of Trust and its members (i.e.
beneficiaries, trustees, or shareholders). Both parties timely responded to this order. (R.11, 12.)
However, neither party was able to provide definitive evidence as to the type of Trust involved in
this case, nor the citizenship of the Trust’s members.
As federal courts have “limited jurisdiction,” it is “presumed that a cause of action lies
outside this limited jurisdiction . . . .” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994) (citations omitted). To overcome this presumption, “[t]he party invoking federal
jurisdiction…bears the burden of proof that the federal courts have jurisdiction.” Varsity Brands,
Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468, 494 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). From the
information provided by the asserting party, “courts will look to see whether the parties are in fact
diverse, not simply whether they are arguably so.” Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich
& Payne Int’l Drilling Co., 137 S.Ct. 1312, 1322 (2017) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
The parties in this case appear to agree that Otis Williams III is a discernable affiliate of
the Trust and that he is a citizen of Louisiana. (PageID.101, 106.) But the parties do not know what
type of trust it is nor do they know for certain that Williams III is the only affiliate. Google and
other business database searches by the parties proved unsuccessful in revealing more information
about the type and membership of the Trust. And given that the Trust has a prior address in
Michigan, it is reasonable to believe it may have additional shareholders, beneficiaries, or trustees
located in Michigan. (PageID.101, 106.) Absent more information as to the type, membership, and
thus citizenship of the Trust, “the current jurisdictional allegations are fatally incomplete, leaving
[the Court] uncertain that diversity jurisdiction exists.” V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596

2

F.3d 354, 357 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, for the reasons discussed, the Court is not satisfied that Banks
has provided sufficient evidence of the Williams Family Trust’s citizenship for purposes of federal
diversity jurisdiction.
This case is therefore dismissed. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) (providing
that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”)
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 29, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 29, 2018.
s/Keisha Jackson
Case Manager

3