Olvera v. Shafer et al

Filing 187

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case as Plaintiffs are citizens of California and WFB Defendants are citizens of South Dakota. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties shall file their proposed joint pretrial order by 5/10/17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 16-5, this case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Koppe for a settlement conference. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GUADALUPE OLVERA, an Individual; and
THE GUADALUPE OLVERA FAMILY
TRUST, by and through its Trustee, Rebecca
Shultz,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
JARED E. SHAFER, an Individual;
)
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY SERVICES )
OF NEVADA, INC., a Nevada Corporation; )
AMY VIGGIANO DEITTRICK, Individually )
and dba AVID BUSINESS SERVICES’
)
PATIENCE BRISTOL, an Individual; WELLS )
FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association; )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01298-GMN-NJK
ORDER

15
16

On February 6, 2017, the Court issued a Minute Order, (ECF No. 185), asking Plaintiffs

17

Guadalupe Olvera and the Guadalupe Olvera Family Trust (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to show

18

cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the case pursuant to a lack of diversity between

19

the parties. Specifically, in its Supplement to Amended Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, (ECF

20

No. 181), Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Susan Bull (collectively

21

“WFB Defendants”) allege that “jurisdiction is not proper” because Wells Fargo “has its main

22

office in California and, therefore, is a resident of California for diversity purposes, as is at least

23

one of the Plaintiffs.” (Supp. to Am. Joint Pretrial Order 4:8–11).

24

In their Response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs notify the Court that Wells

25

Fargo has previously argued in other cases pending before this Court that it is a resident of
South Dakota, where its main office is located. (Resp. 2:1–18, ECF No. 186). In Wachovia
Page 1 of 2

1

Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a national bank’s

2

citizenship under diversity jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1348 is “in the State designated in its

3

articles of association as its main office.” 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006); see Rouse v. Wachovia

4

Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a national bank is a citizen only of

5

the state in which its main office is located and therefore that there was complete diversity

6

between the plaintiffs, citizens of California, and Wells Fargo, a citizen of South Dakota).

7

As such, the Court holds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to

8

diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court admonishes Wells Fargo for its inconsistent

9

representations of citizenship both in this case and in other cases before the Court. (See, e.g.,

10

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Alireza Kaveh, No. 2:13-cv-01472-GMN-NJK, ECF No. 1 (alleging

11

in its complaint that Wells Fargo is a citizen of South Dakota)). Wells Fargo is not permitted to

12

pick and choose its state of citizenship when diversity jurisdiction suits it. Accordingly,

13

pursuant to both Wachovia Bank and Rouse, Wells Fargo is solely a citizen of South Dakota.

14

546 U.S. at 318; 747 F.3d at 709.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case as Plaintiffs are citizens of California and WFB Defendants are citizens of South Dakota.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties shall file their proposed joint pretrial order
by May 10, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 16-5, this case is
REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Koppe for a settlement conference.
10
DATED this _____ day of April, 2017.

22
23
24

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

25

Page 2 of 2