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

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED tht Plaintiff Wells Fargo is given leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days from the date of entry of this order to address the identified defects. If Plaintiffs fails to do so, the action will be dismissed. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 4/30/15. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0178
Plaintiff,
(JUDGE CAPUTO)

v.
FRANCES M. CALLOWAY, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Complaint (Doc. 1) filed by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) on January 26, 2015. This case was reassigned to me on April 23,
2015. Plaintiffs assert that the Court’s basis for subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of
citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id., ¶ 6.) Because the Complaint fails to
establish that the parties have diverse citizenship, it will be dismissed unless Plaintiff can
show that diversity jurisdiction is proper.
I. Analysis
The Complaint does not adequately state diversity of citizenship, as it fails to properly
identify the state of citizenship of Plaintiff and Defendants. Federal courts have an obligation
to address issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Meritcare Inc. v. St. Paul
Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 1999). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) gives district
courts original jurisdiction to hear cases where the matter in controversy exceeds the value
of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) and is between citizens of different states.
“It is . . . well established that when jurisdiction depends upon diverse citizenship the
absence of sufficient averments or of facts in the record showing such required diversity of
citizenship is fatal and cannot be overlooked by the court, even if the parties fail to call
attention to the defect, or consent that it may be waived.” Thomas v. Bd. of Trs., 195 U.S.
207, 211 (1904). Moreover, “[w]hen the foundation of federal authority is, in a particular
instance, open to question, it is incumbent upon the courts to resolve such doubts, one way

or the other, before proceeding to a disposition of the merits.” Carlsberg Res. Corp. v.
Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 554 F.2d 1254, 1256 (3d Cir. 1977); see also Fed R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
Plaintiff’s Complaint in part fails to demonstrate the requirements of federal subject
matter jurisdiction because it insufficiently alleges the citizenship of Wells Fargo Bank, a
corporation. A corporation may only have one principal place of business, and proper
invocation of diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff allege where a corporation has
“its principal place of business.” See S. Freedman & Co., Inc. v. Raab, 180 F. App'x 316,
320 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint alleging where the
plaintiff corporation maintained “a principal place of business,” rather than “its principal place
of business”). A corporation's principal place of business is its “nerve center,” the place
“where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). Here, the Complaint only includes where Plaintiff
Wells Fargo has “its designated main office.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 1.) To properly plead diverse
citizenship, Plaintiff must allege its principal place of business.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to demonstrate diverse citizenship because
it does not properly assert the citizenship of the named Defendants. The Complaint alleges
that Defendants currently reside in Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2-4.) While Plaintiff identifies
in which state they reside, they do not identify the state in which each have citizenship.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the
state where they are domiciled. Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir.
2008) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915)). To be domiciled in a state, a
person must reside there and intend to remain indefinitely. Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d
1298, 1300–01 (3d Cir. 1972). A person may have only one domicile, and thus may be a
citizen of only one state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See Williamson v. Osenton, 232
U.S. 619 (1914).
To the extent the Complaint alleges where the defendants reside, this is not sufficient.
Residence is not the same as domicile and does not establish citizenship for diversity
2

purposes. See Krasnov, 465 F.2d at 1300 (3d Cir. 1972) (“Where one lives is prima facie
evidence of domicile, but mere residency in a state is insufficient for purposes of diversity.”)
(internal citations omitted). To properly allege diversity, Plaintiff must allege the state of
citizenship of each defendant, not merely of residence.

II. Conclusion
As Plaintiff has not shown that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the
parties, the Court cannot determine that subject matter jurisdiction exists and the matter is
subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). However, Plaintiff
will be given twenty-one (21) days to amend the complaint to show that diversity jurisdiction
exists. Failure to do so will result in this action being dismissed.

NOW, this 30th day of April, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Wells
Fargo is given leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date
of entry of this order to address the identified defects. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the action will
be dismissed.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge

3