Bank of America v. 9060 Boston Springs Trust ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FKA No. 19-16802
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,
Successor by merger to BAC Home Loans D.C. No.
Servicing, LP, 2:16-cv-00475-RFB-EJY
District of Nevada,
Plaintiff-Counter- Las Vegas
defendant-Appellee,
ORDER
v.
REMINGTON PLACE HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION; ABSOLUTE
COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants,
and
9060 BOSTON SPRINGS TRUST,
Defendant-Counter-claimant-
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: SILER,* IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
9060 Boston Springs Trust (“Boston Springs”) appeals from the district
court’s summary judgment in favor of Bank of America, N.A. Because we cannot
ascertain from the record whether the district court properly exercised subject
matter jurisdiction, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for the
district court to determine whether there was complete diversity of citizenship
when the case was filed.
“[W]e are obliged to raise sua sponte issues concerning district courts’
subject matter jurisdiction.” Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 933
F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2019). “If the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction . . . , ‘we would have jurisdiction to correct the jurisdictional error, but
not to entertain the merits of an appeal.’” Id. (quoting Matheson v. Progressive
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Bank of America filed this case in the district court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction “requires ‘complete
diversity’ of citizenship, meaning that ‘the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse
from the citizenship of each defendant.’” Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 920
F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68
(1996)).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
In the complaint, Bank of America alleges that it is a citizen of North
Carolina because it “is a national bank with its principal place of business in
Charlotte.” But “a national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main
office is located.” Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir.
2014). Frequently, “the location of a national bank’s main office and of its
principal place of business coincide,” id. at 711 (quoting Wachovia Bank v.
Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 317 n.9 (2006))—but not always. See id. at 709 (“Wells
Fargo’s main office is in South Dakota and its principal place of business is in
California . . . .”). Therefore, Bank of America’s allegations are insufficient to
establish its own citizenship.
The allegations of defendants’ citizenship are also indeterminate. Bank of
America alleges that Remington Place Homeowners’ Association “is a Nevada
non-profit corporation,” but a corporation is a citizen of both its state of
incorporation “and . . . the State where it has its principal place of business.”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
Absolute Collection Services, LLC, a Nevada limited liability corporation, is “a
citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens,” Johnson v.
Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006), but Bank of
America “cannot determine the citizenship of the members.” Boston Springs, a
Nevada trust, “has the citizenship of its trustee or trustees,” id., but Bank of
3
America “cannot determine the citizenship of the trustee.” As the party invoking
federal jurisdiction, Bank of America had the burden to “allege . . . the facts
essential to show jurisdiction.” McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind.,
298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).
“We cannot consider the merits of the appeal before assuring ourselves that
the district court had jurisdiction.” Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1091. Therefore, we
vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for the district court to ascertain
the citizenship of all the parties. “Further discovery on this issue might well
demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction, and in the past we
have remanded in just such a situation.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell &
Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). If the
district court determines that there was not complete diversity at the time the
complaint was filed, it shall dismiss the action. If the district court determines that
the parties were diverse, it may (but need not) reconsider its summary judgment
ruling in light of subsequent developments in Nevada law. See, e.g., 7510 Perla
Del Mar Ave Tr. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 458 P.3d 348 (Nev. 2020) (en banc).
Neither side shall recover costs.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
4