Opinion ID: 4155098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The district court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although we recognize that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016), has injected some uncertainty into the diversity jurisdiction inquiry where a party sued is at least nominally a “trust,” this uncertainty does not affect the outcome of this case. In Americold, the Supreme Court held that for diversity jurisdiction purposes a Maryland real estate investment trust takes the citizenship of its members. Id. at 1015–16. The Court characterized this holding as merely “adher[ing] to [its] oft-repeated rule that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or 3 No. 15-20615 against [an unincorporated entity] depends on the citizenship of all [its] members.” Id. at 1015 (emphasis added) (final alteration in original) (quoting C.T. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990)). As to trusts, the Court reiterated its prior holding in Navarro Savings Association v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 465 (1980), “that when a trustee files a lawsuit in her name, her jurisdictional citizenship is the State to which she belongs—as is true of any natural person.” Americold, 136 S. Ct. at 1016 (emphasis in original). Where a trustee has been sued or files suit in her own name, the only preliminary question a court must answer is whether the party is an “active trustee[] whose control over the assets held in [its] name[] is real and substantial.” Carden, 494 U.S. at 191 (quoting Navarro, 446 U.S. at 465). The fact “[t]hat the trust [otherwise] may depart from conventional forms in other respects has no bearing upon this determination.” Navarro, 446 U.S. at 465. Here, Wells Fargo was sued in its capacity as a trustee. Regardless of whether the trust managed by Wells Fargo could be characterized as a “traditional trust,” Wells Fargo itself wields the very sort of “real and substantial” control over assets held in its name that was long ago contemplated by the Supreme Court in Navarro. See id. at 464–65. Per the Trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Wells Fargo as the trustee holds “all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund.” EMC Mortgage Corp. & Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Pooling and Servicing Agreement § 2.01 (Feb. 1, 2007), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388968/ 000088237707000985/d642573_ex4-1.htm. Moreover, the trust’s beneficiaries have no power to “control the operation and management of the Trust Fund”— this is solely the job of the trustee. Id. § 12.08. Accordingly, we look only to Wells Fargo’s citizenship—rather than that of the trust beneficiaries—to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. As Wells Fargo is a citizen of South Dakota, SPS is a citizen of Utah, and Justice is a citizen of Texas, we 4 No. 15-20615 find that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction in this case.