Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. )

BARRETT R. BATES, qui tam )

plaintiff, on behalf of real ) 2:10-cv-01429-GEB-CMK

parties in interest, ALAMEDA )

COUNTY, et al., ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION TO REMAND*

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

v. ) 

) 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION )

SYSTEMS, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff relator Barrett Bates (“Bates”) moves to remand

this qui tam action to Lassen County Superior Court in the State of

California from which Defendants removed it.

Plaintiff argues complete diversity is lacking because

the State of California is a real party to the controversy, and

states, as domestic sovereigns, are not citizens for purposes of

diversity jurisdiction. (Mot. to Remand 4:25-5:5.) Defendant

counters, arguing the State “is not a real party in interest, [and]

it must be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity of

citizenship.” (Opp’n 1:14-15.)

Case 2:10-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 37 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

In qui tam actions, “[q]ui tam relators . . . sue on

behalf of the government . . ., which is always the real party in

interest.” U.S. ex rel. Hyatt v. Northrop Corp., 91 F.3d 1211,

1217 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996). Under the CFCA, however, relators can

sue on behalf of a state or a political subdivision. State ex rel.

Harris v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 39 Cal. 4th 1220, 1227

(2006). Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he brings this

suit “on behalf of real parties in interest, the Counties of

California.” (Compl. 2:15-16; Id. ¶ 3 (“The Counties are the real

parties in interest.”).) Plaintiff also alleges Defendants failed

to comply with “the counties’ recording requirements . . . and

recorded false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial

foreclosures,” and in doing so “avoid[ed] payment of [recording]

fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is

located.” (Compl. ¶ 54 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff has failed to

point to any allegation in his complaint showing that he is also

suing on behalf of the State. The “[C]ourt must disregard nominal

or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship

of real parties to the controversy.” Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee,

446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980). Since Plaintiff’s allegations fail to

show that the State is anything more than a nominal party, it is

disregarded for determining whether complete diversity exists.

Plaintiff also argues complete diversity is lacking

because under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Defendant Wells Fargo is a citizen

of California, its principal place of business. Defendants counter

since Wells Fargo is a national banking association, 28 U.S.C. §

1348, not § 1332, controls the determination of which state Wells

Fargo is a citizen. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1348, “all national banking

Case 2:10-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 37 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the States in which

they are respectively located.” Unlike § 1332, § 1348 does not

state that a national banking association “shall be deemed to be a

citizen of any State . . . where it has its principal place of

business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The Supreme Court has

held that under § 1348, a national bank, is “located” “in the State

designated in its articles of association as its main office.” 

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006). Wells

Fargo’s main office, as designated in its articles of association,

is located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. (Goldberg Decl. Ex. 1,

Wells Fargo Articles of Association.) Accordingly, Wells Fargo is

a citizen of South Dakota, and “Wells Fargo is not a citizen of

California.” DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2382404, at

*2 (N.D. Cal. 2010); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-Pin,

LLC, 2008 WL 5429134, at *1 (D. Minn. 2008) (“Wells Fargo Bank is

not a citizen of California, [and] the Court rejects Respondents’

assertion that complete diversity of citizenship does not exist.”).

Lastly, Plaintiff argues diversity is defeated because

the unidentified Does include “corporations . . . headquartered in

California.” (Plt.’s Mot. to Remand 9:3.) However, “Congress

obviously reached the conclusion that doe defendants should not

defeat diversity jurisdiction[,]” Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 886

F.2d 1526, 1528 (9th Cir. 1987), when it amended the removal

statute to include the following language: “For purposes of removal

. . ., the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names

shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Therefore, the Doe

defendants are disregarded for purposes of resolving Plaintiff’s

motion.

Case 2:10-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 37 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Since Plaintiff has not shown that removal was improper,

Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action is DENIED.

Dated: July 21, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 37 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 4