Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05629/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05629-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON NOELLE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05629-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED

Plaintiff Sharon Harris filed this action in the Superior Court of San Mateo County on 

October 4, 2012. Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

removed that action to this Court on November 1, 2012, on the basis of diversity of citizenship 

because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Wells Fargo’s “main office” is located in South 

Dakota. Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1-1 at 1. See Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306–

07, n.9 (2006) (holding national banking associations are citizens of the state in which their main 

office is located; reserving the question of whether national banking associations are also citizens 

of the state in which their principal place of business is located).

The undersigned has recently held that, for diversity purposes, Wells Fargo is also a citizen 

of the State of California because it maintains its principal place of business in California. Vargas 

v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 6235575, No. 3:12-cv-02008-JST 

(N.D. Cal. Dec, 2, 2013). Because Plaintiff brings exclusively state-law causes of action, Wells 

Fargo’s Notice of Removal does not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that this Court has 

jurisdiction over this action, as diversity does not exist between the parties. See Hertz Corp. v. 

Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010) (burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction lies with 

party asserting it); see also Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“strong 

Case 3:12-cv-05629-JST Document 52 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

presumption” against removal jurisdiction must be overcome by removing party).

While Plaintiff has not moved to remand, district courts have an independent obligation to 

satisfy themselves of their subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed action. United Investors 

Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). “If at any time before 

final judgment, it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Consequently, the Court hereby ORDERS Wells Fargo to show cause why this action 

should not be remanded to San Mateo County Superior Court for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Wells Fargo shall file a written response to this Order to Show Cause by January 17, 

2014, either (1) conceding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or (2) bringing to the 

Court’s attention any material distinction in the facts of this case, or subsequent development in 

the law, that requires an outcome different than that in Vargas. The Court will not reconsider its 

prior holding in the absence of new facts or law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05629-JST Document 52 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2