New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Diversity Jurisdiction: National Bank Is “Located” (28 U.S.C. §1348) in the State Designated in Its Articles of Ass’n As Its Main Office — LLC Has Citizenship of All of Its Members

Download PDF

TD Bank, N.A. v. Bapa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7067 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2018):

***In this case, the Complaint fails to specify the jurisdictional basis upon which it rests. (See Docket Entry 1, ¶ 6 (stating only that "[t]his Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action and the subject matter of the claims set forth").) However, the parties treat this action as arising under the Court's diversity jurisdiction, and no discernable basis for federal question jurisdiction appears in the record. (See generally Docket Entries 1, 10, 19, 20, 23-25 (relying on state substantive law).) The Court therefore examines the availability of diversity jurisdiction, remaining mindful that "diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff," Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (emphasis in original).

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff "is a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States" and "is co-headquartered in Maine [*7]  and New Jersey and conducts business in North Carolina." (Docket Entry 1, ¶ 1.) The Complaint further describes LLC Defendant as "organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with a principal place of business in Cumberland County, North Carolina." (Id., ¶ 2.) Finally, the Complaint maintains that each Guarantor "is a resident of Lodi, New Jersey." (Id., ¶¶ 3-5.)5 Because the Complaint provided insufficient information for "assessing the citizenship of Plaintiff and [LLC] Defendant" (Docket Entry 26 at 1), the Court ordered the parties to file notices supplying certain citizenship information (see id. at 1-2). According to these notices, Plaintiff's "main office, as designated in its articles of association, is located in the State of Delaware" (Docket Entry 27 at 1) and LLC Defendant "is a North Carolina limited liability company," whose members - the Guarantors - all qualify as residents and citizens of New Jersey (Docket Entry 28 at 1-2).

5 The Answer concedes the accuracy of the jurisdictional allegations regarding Defendants. (See Docket Entry 10, ¶¶ 2-5.)

For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the Court attributes to a limited liability company "the citizenship of all of [*8]  its members." Central W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011). Thus, notwithstanding its establishment under North Carolina law, LLC Defendant remains a citizen of New Jersey. As to Plaintiff, "national banking associations shall," for cases of this sort, "be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located."  28 U.S.C. § 1348.  According to the United States Supreme Court, one "'locates'" a bank for Section 1348 purposes "in the State designated in its articles of association as its main office." Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006).6 That view establishes Plaintiff as a citizen of Delaware. (See Docket Entry 27 at 1.) The parties therefore qualify as diverse, bringing this case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction.7

6 In so holding, the Supreme Court distinguished the statute governing corporate citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), explaining that "Congress has prescribed that a corporation 'shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.'" Id.

7 This case satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirements for diversity jurisdiction. (See Docket Entry 1 at 6.)

***

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice