Opinion
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-534-MEF [WO]
01-19-2012
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. EDWARDS PROPERTIES, LTD., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Section 1332 requires complete diversity; therefore, each defendant must be a citizen of a different state than each plaintiff. Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). National banks are "corporate entities chartered not by any State, but by the Comptroller of the Currency of the U.S. Treasury." Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 1348 states that "[a]ll national banking associations shall, for the purposes of all other actions by or against them, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located." Id. In Wachovia Bank, the Supreme Court "h[e]ld that a national bank, for § 1348 purposes, is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of incorporation, is located." 546 U.S. at 307 (emphasis added).
Trustmark alleges that it "is a nationally-chartered banking institution with its principal place of business in Mississippi." (Am. Ver. Compl. ¶ 1.) The Supreme Court noted in Wachovia Bank that a national bank's main office and its principal place of business coincide in almost every case. Id. at 317 & n.9; cf. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC, 653 F.3d 702, 708 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that "[b]ecause Wells Fargo's main office is in a state other than that of its principal place of business, we must consider the outlier scenario identified in footnote nine of Wachovia Bank" and later "hold[ing] that . . . a national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located"); see also Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006) (main office only). On account of the fact that Wachovia Bank identifies the national bank's main office as the relevant location for citizenship purposes, and because recent appellate court decisions interpreting Wachovia Bank have held that a national bank's principal place of business is not its location for citizenship purposes, the Court concludes that Trustmark's jurisdictional allegations are presently lacking.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED with leave to re-file, if and when appropriate; and,
(2) Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or before January 30, 2012. Failure to file a second amended complaint within the prescribed time period will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE