1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 29) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE

___________________________________ 

: 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND : 

SOCIETY, FSB, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : Civil No. 10-4061 (RBK/AMD) 

: 

v. : ORDER

: 

LEFT FIELD PROPERTIES, L.L.C. a.k.a : 

LEFT FIELD PROPERTIES, LLC, : 

BRIAN T. BARR; NOVA BANK; and : 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, : 

: 

Defendants. : 

___________________________________ : 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Wilmington 

Savings Fund Society (“WSFS”) for entry of final judgment by default on a mortgage 

foreclosure action against Defendants Left Field Properties, L.L.C. a.k.a. Left Field Properties, 

LLC (“Left Field”), Brian T. Barr, Nova Bank (“Nova”), and the State of New Jersey; and 

IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that WSFS is a federal savings bank, with its home 

office located in Wilmington, Delaware; and 

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that Defendant Left Field, a New 

Jersey limited liability company, has its principal place of business in Media, Pennsylvania, and 

Defendant Barr, Left Field’s sole member, is an individual who resides in Malvern, 

Pennsylvania; and 

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that Nova, a Pennsylvania banking 

corporation, has its principal place of business in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania; and 

Case 1:10-cv-04061-RBK-AMD Document 30 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 312
2

THE COURT NOTING that “[b]efore entering a default judgment against a party that 

has not filed responsive pleadings, ‘the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its 

jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties,’” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Hewitt, No. 07-

4536, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90719, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2008) (quoting Williams v. Life Sav. 

& Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986)); and 

THE COURT NOTING FURTHER that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 

if there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012); and that “[c]omplete diversity requires that, in cases with multiple 

plaintiffs or multiple defendants, no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any defendant,” 

Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Exxon 

Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs. Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005); Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Insur. 

Co., 561 F.3d 144, 148 (3d Cir. 2009); and 

THE COURT NOTING FURTHER that “[f]or diversity purposes, the citizenship of a 

federal savings bank is determined by the location of its home office,” Davis v. Citibank West,

FSB, No. 10-4477, 2011 WL 1086055, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 

1464(x)); and that “citizenship of a limited liability company (‘LLC’) for diversity jurisdiction 

purposes . . . is determined by the citizenship of each of its members,” Zambelli Fireworks, 592 

F.3d at 418; and that an individual “is deemed to be a citizen of the state where he is domiciled,” 

Id. at 419 (citing Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir.2008)); and that 

“[a] business organized as a corporation, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, is ‘deemed to be a 

citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated’ and . . . also ‘of the State where it has its 

principal place of business,’” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006) (citing 28 

Case 1:10-cv-04061-RBK-AMD Document 30 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 313
3

U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)); and that “[s]tate banks, usually chartered as corporate bodies by a 

particular State, ordinarily fit comfortably within this prescription;” Id.; and 

THE COURT NOTING FURTHER that “[t]here is no question that a State is not a 

‘citizen’ for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction,” Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693, 717 

(1973) (citing Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894)); and that “it is 

well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen . . . of another state is not between citizens of 

different states, and that [a] court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it,” unless the case 

presents a federal question, Postal Tel. Cable Co., 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894); see Ramada Inns, 

Inc. v. Rosemount Mem’l Park Ass’n, 598 F.2d 1303, 1306 (3d Cir. 1979) (asserting that a 

“district court would be without power to entertain [an] action under the diversity statute” if the 

state of New Jersey [was] a real party in interest); State of La. v. Sprint Communications Co., 

892 F. Supp. 145, 147-48 (M.D. La. 1995) (granting motion to remand, in part, because removal 

based on diversity of citizenship was improper where State of Louisiana was one of several 

plaintiffs); and

THE COURT FINDING that although Plaintiff and Defendants Left Field, Barr, and 

Nova are citizens of different states for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the State of New Jersey 

is not a “citizen” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; and 

THE COURT FINDING FURTHER that, therefore, complete diversity of citizenship 

does not exist in this case; and 

THE COURT FINDING FURTHER that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction 

over this dispute; and 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for final judgment by default is 

DENIED; and 

Case 1:10-cv-04061-RBK-AMD Document 30 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 314
4

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Date: 4/23/2012 /s/ Robert B. Kugler 

 ROBERT B. KUGLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:10-cv-04061-RBK-AMD Document 30 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 315