You're viewing Docket Item 9 from the case Singh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:






Case 2:13-cv-01946-GEB-AC Document 9 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 3











UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UPENDRA SINGH,

No. 2:13-cv-01946-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,



v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING SECOND APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURSIDICTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14



15

16

17

18

19

20



An order issued September 20, 2013, dismissing this

action with leave to amend and denying Plaintiff’s ex parte

application for a temporary restraining order for failure to

allege subject matter jurisdiction. (See Order, ECF No. 6.)



Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September

20, 2013 (ECF No. 7), in which he alleges as follows concerning

21

subject matter jurisdiction:

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






Jurisdiction and venue are proper because the
parties are completely diverse and because
all of the acts alleged herein occurred
within this judicial district. Jurisdiction
and venue are proper because the parties are
diverse. Specifically, defendant Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., contrary to common misconception,
is not a resident of the State of California
with a domicile in San Francisco. Rather, it
is a resident of Sioux Falls, [South] Dakota.
A true copy of the California Secretary of
State’s business entity information is
Exhibit 1 hereto. Therefore, pursuant to 28

1







Case 2:13-cv-01946-GEB-AC Document 9 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

USC §1332, this action is properly before the
federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.

(Pl.’s First Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) Also on September 20, 2013,

Plaintiff filed a second ex parte application for a temporary

restraining order seeking to prevent the foreclosure sale of his

home. (Pl.’s TRO, ECF No. 8.)



It is evident from Plaintiff’s amended allegations

concerning

subject

matter

jurisdiction

that

Plaintiff’s

conclusory statement that “the parties are completely of diverse”

is based upon Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant is a citizen

of North Dakota, “not a [citizen] of the State of California,”

whereas, Plaintiff is a citizen of California. However, this

Court has previously determined that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is

“‘a citizen of California as well as a citizen of South Dakota.’”

Gosal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:12-cv-02024-GEB-CKD, 2012

WL 4961696, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2012) (quoting Taheny v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1109 (E.D. Cal.

2012)).



Since the parties’ citizenship is not diverse, the

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Therefore, the action is dismissed without leave to amend. See

Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002)

(indicating “[d]ismissal without leave to amend” is proper when

“it is clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by

amendment”).



Further, Plaintiff’s second application for a temporary

restraining order is denied, since “[i]n the absence of a

complaint setting out the basis for jurisdiction, the court lacks






2







Case 2:13-cv-01946-GEB-AC Document 9 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 3

1

the jurisdiction to grant a temporary restraining order.”

2

Camillos v. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 5:11-CV-05228 EJD, 2011 WL

3

5122619, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011).

Dated: September 20, 2013













4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






3