Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01672/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01672-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-1672

___________

ANGELO RALPH BIZZARRO,

Appellant

v.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00173)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

on May 1, 2020

Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 11, 2020)

Case: 19-1672 Document: 34 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
2

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Angelo Bizzarro, a resident of Erie, Pennsylvania, filed a federal complaint against First National Bank (FNB) based on an unauthorized withdrawal from his 

account. The factual allegations in the complaint state, in toto, “First National Bank was 

negligent in approving a withdrawal of account funds to a third party without confirming 

the account holder’s . . . identification.” Complaint, D.C. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ VI. The magistrate 

judge, ruling with the consent of the parties, granted FNB’s motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction, and Bizzarro appealed.1 For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe Bizzarro’s pro se complaint 

liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), and review the order 

dismissing the complaint de novo, see Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 110 (3d Cir. 

2010). 

In this case, the only possible grounds on which the District Court’s jurisdiction might 

rest are federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

1 Bizzarro presents a motion to expedite the appeal. Additionally, FNB filed a motion to 

seal the supplemental appendix, of which it has submitted both redacted and unredacted 

versions.

Case: 19-1672 Document: 34 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
3

28 U.S.C. § 1332. A district court has federal-question jurisdiction in a case where a plaintiff makes a nonfrivolous allegation that he or she is entitled to relief under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. See Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, 983 F.2d 

1277, 1281 (3d Cir. 1993). Here, Bizzarro’s allegations of negligence and misappropriation 

sounded in state law. No federal statute or constitutional provision served as the basis for 

any claim in this case; federal question jurisdiction therefore did not lie.

A district court has diversity jurisdiction in a case “between . . . citizens of different 

States” where the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 

of interest and costs.” Freidrich v. Davis, 767 F.3d 374, 377 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). This means that unless there is some other basis for jurisdiction, “no

plaintiff [may] be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. 

Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, according to the complaint, Bizzarro 

is a citizen of Pennsylvania. In an attachment to the motion to dismiss, FNB provided its 

articles of incorporation, which note that FNB’s main office is located in Greenville, Pennsylvania. Thus, FNB is also considered a citizen of Pennsylvania for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. See Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006) (“[A] national 

bank . . . is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of 

Case: 19-1672 Document: 34 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
4

association, is located.”). Because both parties are citizens of the same state, the District 

Court did not have diversity jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, because neither diversity nor subject-matter jurisdiction existed, we will 

affirm the District Court’s judgment granting FNB’s motion to dismiss.2

2 Bizzarro’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied. FNB’s motion to seal the supplemental appendix is denied in light of the fact that an appropriately redacted version of the 

appendix (which excludes the personal identifying information of Bizzarro and a third 

party) has been filed. The provisionally sealed, unredacted supplemental appendix is struck 

from the record.

Case: 19-1672 Document: 34 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/11/2020