U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Wiebeld et al
DECISION AND ORDER dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 08/08/2017. (CDH) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST,
DECISION AND ORDER
-vsNANCY R. WIEBELD and KEVIN J. WIEBELD,
nonpayment of a mortgage by defendants Nancy R. Wiebeld and Kevin
J. Wiebeld (collectively “defendants”). On July 5, 2017, the Court
issued an Order To Show Cause requiring plaintiff to show cause in
writing no later than July 31, 2017, why its complaint should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed its response to the Court’s Order To Show
Cause on July 31, 2017.
Docket No. 14.
The Court has reviewed
this response and determines, for the reasons discussed below, that
plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has subject
plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
Plaintiff commenced the instant action on December 8, 2016.
Docket No. 1.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to
make payments under the terms of a mortgage held by it and secured
by property owned by defendants, and seeks a judgment for the
outstanding amount of the loan, as well as foreclosure and sale of
Plaintiff asserts federal subject matter jurisdiction based
asserts that defendants are both citizens of New York and that it
is “a national association” with its principal place of business in
Id. at ¶¶ 2-4.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action
as trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust (the “Trust”).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction whose power
United Food & Commercial Workers Union,
Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc.,
30 F.3d 298, 303 (2d Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, there exists an
“inflexible rule” that “if a court perceives at any stage of the
proceedings that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it must
take proper notice of the defect by dismissing the action.”
v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir.
2008); see also R.S. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 899 F. Supp. 2d
285, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (subject matter jurisdiction is not a
prudential or discretionary doctrine, but rather, is an inflexible
rule that without exception requires federal courts, on their own
motion, to determine if jurisdiction is lacking).
court’s jurisdiction must clearly appear from the face of [the]
complaint. . . .”
Verosol USA, Inc. v. Fla. Shades, Inc., 1992 WL
omitted). “And when a complaint fails to plead subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court is obligated to dismiss it sua sponte.”
Receivables Exch., LLC v. Hotton, 2011 WL 239865, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan. 21, 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)).
As set forth in the Order to Show Cause, plaintiff’s complaint
citizenship, and provided no information regarding the citizenship
of the Trust.
In its response to the Order to Show Cause, plaintiff has
adequately shown that it is an “active trustee whose control over
the assets held . . . is real and substantial.”
U.S. Bank Trust,
N.A. v. Monroe, 2017 WL 923326, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017)
plaintiff has adequately established that its citizenship controls
for purposes of diversity.
However, plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with
adequate information regarding its own citizenship to permit a
finding of subject matter jurisdiction.
As this Court and others
have repeatedly explained to plaintiff, “the citizenship of a
national banking association is determined by the state designated
in its articles of association as its main office.”
U.S. Bank Tr.,
N.A. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr. v. Licata, 2017 WL 2671421,
at *1 (W.D.N.Y. June 21, 2017) (emphasis added); see also Monroe,
2017 WL 923326, at *4. Moreover, “the Second Circuit has expressly
held that the principal place of business is not to be considered
Monroe,2017 WL 923326, at *4.
Despite being on notice that its citizenship is determined by
association, plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause does
not provide this information.
Instead, it merely reiterates the
allegation in the complaint that its “principal executive offices”
are in Delaware, and provides documentation relative to that
See Docket No. 14 at 6.
Plaintiff has “failed to
provide its articles of association, and failed to state anywhere
in its memorandum that Delaware is the state listed as the location
of its main office in the articles of association.”
U.S. Bank Tr.,
N.A. v. Dupre, 2016 WL 5107123, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2016)
(dismissing claim brought by plaintiff for failure to properly
establish its own citizenship).
Accordingly, the Court lacks the
information necessary to determine plaintiff’s citizenship, and is
therefore obligated to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this case sua
sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of the
Court is directed to close the case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
August 8, 2017
Rochester, New York.
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?