492 F.2d 48 (9th Cir. 1974), 72-2712, Seattle Trust and Sav. Bank v. Bank of California, N.A.

Docket Nº:72-2712, 72-2750.
Citation:492 F.2d 48
Party Name:SEATTLE TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, a Bank incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., a national banking association, Defendant-Appellee, and William B. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States,Intervening Defendant-Appellee. John J. McCARTHY, Supervisor, Division
Case Date:January 30, 1974
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 48

492 F.2d 48 (9th Cir. 1974)

SEATTLE TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, a Bank incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

The BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., a national banking association, Defendant-Appellee, and William B. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States,Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

John J. McCARTHY, Supervisor, Division of Banking, Department of GeneralAdministration, State of Washington, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,

v.

The BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., a national banking association, Defendant-Appellee, and William B. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States,Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 72-2712, 72-2750.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 30, 1974

Page 49

         Lauren D. Studebaker (Argued) of Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones, Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., and Richard A. Heath, Deputy Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., Thomas Beierle (Argued) (amici curiae) Seattle, Wash., for appellants.

         Noble Gregory (Argued), William I. Edlund, Walter J. Robinson, III, of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., Paul W. Steere of Bogle, Gates, Dobrin, Wakefield & Long, Seattle, Wash., John E. Shockey, Director of Litigation, Comptroller of the Currency, Dept. of the Treasury, Washington, D.C., James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Peter V. Shackter, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Walter H. Fleischer, Anthony J. Steinmeyer (Argued) Civ. Div., Appellate Section, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

         Before TRASK and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER, [*] District judge.

         PER CURIAM:

         In this action seven banks in the State of Washington challenged, in the District Court, a decision of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States granting to the Bank of California, N.A., a national banking association, permission to open a new branch in the City of Seattle, Washington. The trial court found that the Comptroller had properly applied federal and state law in reaching his decision and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The plaintiff banks and the Washington State Supervisor of Banking, as plaintiff intervenor, appeal. We affirm.

         The parties apparently agree that no factual dispute exists and that summary judgment was an appropriate form of disposition by the trial court, each side having so moved the court.

         On July 1, 1970, the Bank of California applied to the United States Comptroller of the Currency for permission: (1) to relocate its existing Seattle office to a new location in Seattle, and (2) to establish a new branch at 815 Second Avenue in Seattle, the site of its existing Seattle office. Upon receipt of the application, competing national and state banks and the Washington Supervisor of Banking were notified of the application. Objections were filed to that portion of the application seeking to establish a new branch. The Comptroller allowed presentations by all interested parties and, after an independent investigation by a national bank examiner and review by his staff, issued his opinion granting the application and setting forth reasons for his decision.

         Plaintiffs filed this action to enjoin the Bank of California from taking the

Page 50

Comptroller's authorized action of opening a second branch in the City of Seattle; the Comptroller of the Currency intervened as a defendant and the Washington Supervisor of Banking intervened as a plaintiff. Another group of banks, Western Independent Bankers, have also appeared as amicus curiae supporting plaintiffs. Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held that the decision of the Comptroller was reasonable and entered judgments for defendants.

         Appellants make three contentions here. First, they contend that the District Court erred in approving the Comptroller's determination that the Bank of California is 'situated' in Seattle, Washington, for purposes of Section 36(c) of the National Bank Act which regulates bank branching. Second, appellants argue that the trial court erred in approving the Comptroller's determination that appellee had its 'principal place of business' in Seattle within the meaning of the Washington State branch banking statute, RCW 30.40.020. Finally, appellants assert that the District Court erred in applying an erroneous standard of judicial review of the decision of the comptroller.

          We consider first the question raised concerning the proper standard of judicial review of the Comptroller's decision. Although this issue was not clearly presented or determined in the trial court, it does appear from the record that the District Court adopted the view urged by the Bank of California and the Comproller that the Courts should uphold the Comptroller's administrative ruling unless...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP