UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1952

HALIFAX CORPORATION,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-578-GBL)

Submitted: May 8, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert W. Ludwig, Jr., LUDWIG & ROBINSON, P.L.L.C., Washington,

D.C.; Henry St. John FitzGerald, Arlington, Virginia, for

Appellant. Grady C. Frank, Jr., Thomas C. Junker, LECLAIR RYAN,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Halifax Corporation brought a civil action against

Wachovia Bank, N.A., asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1332 (2000). Relying on our decision in Wachovia Bank v.

Schmidt, 388 F.3d 414 (4th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 126 S. Ct. 941

(2006), Wachovia moved to dismiss for lack of diversity

jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. We vacate

the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

We review de novo a district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). The

district court should grant the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss

“only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and

the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”

Evans, 166 F.3d at 647 (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac

R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991)). 

In Schmidt, we held that national banks are “located”

under 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (2000), in every state in which they operate

a branch office. 388 F.3d at 432. The district court relied on

our decision to find that because Wachovia has branch offices in

Virginia and Halifax is a citizen of Virginia, diversity

jurisdiction did not exist under § 1348. While this case was

pending on direct review, the Supreme Court reversed this court’s

judgment in Schmidt, resolving a circuit split and holding that for
- 3 -

the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a bank is “located” in the

state designated in its articles of association as its main office

under § 1348. Schmidt, 126 S. Ct. at 952. 

“When [the Supreme Court] applies a rule of federal law

to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling

interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive

effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all

events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our

announcement of the rule.” Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation,

509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993). We find that because this case was pending

on direct review at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision in

Schmidt, it applies to this case. 

Because the parties are citizens of different states, and

the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold set forth

in § 1332, the requirements for jurisdiction have been satisfied.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the

case is remanded for further proceedings. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED