Roberts v. Santander Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 15-cv-13391-ADB
Decision Date | 29 October 2015 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 15-cv-13391-ADB |
Citation | 141 F.Supp.3d 164 |
Parties | Priscilla Roberts, Plaintiff, v. Santander Bank, N.A., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Stephen P. Colella, Law Office of Stephen Colella, Haverhill, MA, Armand H. Hyatt, Hyatt & Hyatt Law Offices, Lawrence, MA, for Plaintiff.
Mary Ellen Manganelli, Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
Plaintiff Priscilla Roberts ("Roberts") filed a state court complaint against defendant Santander Bank, N.A. ("Santander") in Essex County Superior Court on July 21, 2015. [ECF No. 1, Exh. 1.] The Complaint was served on Santander on August 31, 2015, and Santander removed the case to this Court on September 18, 2015 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. [ECF No. 1.] On October 16, 2015, Roberts filed a Motion to Remand. [ECF No. 7.]
In her complaint, Roberts brings several causes of action related to a deposit she allegedly made at a Santander branch location. Roberts alleges that she attempted to make a cash deposit of $103,324.00, but Santander only credited her for $13,324.00. In her Motion to Remand, Roberts argues that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
, Santander, as a corporation, is a citizen of both the state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it principal place of business is located. Roberts contends that Massachusetts is the principal place of business of Santander, and, therefore, complete diversity does not exist between Santander and Roberts, a Massachusetts citizen.
In its Notice of Removal, Santander asserts that, for diversity purposes, it is only a citizen of Delaware, the location of its home office, as set forth in its articles of incorporation. Because it is a national banking association [ECF No. 1, ¶ 4], Santander is "deemed" a citizen of the state in which it is "located." 28 U.S.C. § 1348
().1 The Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to mean that a national bank is "located" in "the State designated in its articles of association as its main office." Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt , 546 U.S. 303, 318, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006). As a result, a national bank is only a citizen of the state designated in its articles of association. See
Peterson v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n , 918 F.Supp.2d 89, 99 (D.Mass.2013) () (internal citations omitted); see also
McLarnon v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. , No. CIV.A. 15–11799–FDS, 2015 WL 4207127, at *3 (D Mass. July 10, 2015) () . Here, despite evidence that Santander conducts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flinn v. Santander Bank, N.A.
...1464(x) ; Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006) ; Roberts v. Santander Bank, N.A., 141 F.Supp.3d 164, 165 (D. Mass. 2015) (Burroughs, J.) ). Santander neither controverted Flinn's allegation that Santander Holdings' principal place of busin......