WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB v. LEFT FIELD PROPERTIES, L.L.C. et al
Filing
30
ORDER denying 29 Motion for Default Judgment; ORDERED that the Pltf's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 4/23/2012. (dmr)
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
1
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. 074536, 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
2
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
3
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
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
