Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1307 DATE 9/13/2012

CASE

TITLE

PNC Bank, N.A. vs. North Star Trust Co., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants Victor and Matilde Colindres’s motion to strike or dismiss plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A.’s complaint

[16] is denied. Status hearing set for 9/14/2012 is stricken and reset to 9/24/2012 at 9:30 a.m. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Defendants Victor and Matilde Colindres (“defendants”) move to strike or dismiss the complaint for

foreclosure of mortgage filed by plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association (“PNC”). For the reasons given

below, that motion is denied.

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support diversity jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Specifically, defendants contend that plaintiff has not alleged diversity of citizenship with

facts based on personal knowledge and has incorrectly pleaded the amount in controversy. These arguments

are without merit.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where

there is “complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants” and where the amount in controversy is

more than $75,000. See also Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Defendants first argue

that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege diversity of citizenship among the parties. Without citing to any

case law, defendants assert that because PNC conducts business in Illinois, plaintiff cannot establish

complete diversity. Defendants also argue that plaintiff has not alleged “factual detail to support [the]

conclusion” that defendants are Illinois citizens. Neither argument is persuasive. Plaintiff alleges that its

main office is in Pennsylvania, and “a national bank, for [28 U.S.C.] § 1348 purposes, is a citizen of the State

in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546

U.S. 303, 307 (2006). For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, then, plaintiff is a citizen of

Pennsylvania, as alleged in the complaint. Defendants fare no better in arguing that plaintiff has

insufficiently pleaded defendants’ Illinois citizenship.1

 Defendants do not challenge the underlying factual

basis for plaintiff’s allegation that defendants are citizens of Illinois. Instead, they state in conclusory fashion

that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient factual detail. But defendants do not cite any support for the argument

that plaintiff should be held to a higher pleading standard in this case. 

Defendants’ final argument is easily dismissed. In arguing that plaintiff has not alleged the necessary

amount in controversy, defendants’ motion focuses on the amount of past-due real estate taxes. However,

12C1307 PNC Bank, N.A. vs. North Star Trust Co., et al. Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

1. Defendants do not argue that defendant North Start Trust Company is not a citizen of Illinois.

they fail to account for the fact that plaintiff alleges that defendants stopped making monthly principal and

interest payments in addition to not paying the real estate taxes. According to the complaint, as a result of

defendants’ default, plaintiff accelerated the indebtedness and as of February 23, 2012, defendants owed a

total amount of $229,656.52. In support of their claim, plaintiff attached to their complaint a copy of the

Notice of Default and Acceleration sent to defendants. Defendants do not deny that the plaintiff accelerated

all amounts due nor do they raise a colorable challenge to the factual allegations in the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is denied.

12C1307 PNC Bank, N.A. vs. North Star Trust Co., et al. Page 2 of 2