UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1112
JACQUELYN A. COOTS, Guardian of the Property
for the Minor Children; TNW; NIW; HW; MPW,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
WACHOVIA SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, formerly
known as First Union Brokerage Services,
Incorporated,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., formerly known as First
Union Brokerage Services, Incorporated,
formerly known as First Union Bank,
Defendant.
No. 04-1384
JACQUELYN A. COOTS, Guardian of the Property
for the Minor Children; TNW; NIW; HW; MPW,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., formerly known as First
Union Brokerage Services, Incorporated,
formerly known as First Union Bank,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
WACHOVIA SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, formerly
known as First Union Brokerage Services,
Incorporated,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
03-705-PJM)
Argued: October 28, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Virginia Wood Barnhart, POPE & HUGHES, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for
Appellant. Stephen Bennett Mercer, SANDLER & MERCER, P.C.,
Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellee Jacquelyn Coots, as guardian to four minor children,
filed an action in Maryland state court against Wachovia
Securities, Inc., alleging that Wachovia Securities wrongfully
converted life insurance proceeds disbursed to the children upon
the death of their father. J.A. 351. Wachovia Securities removed
the case to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland. J.A. iv. In the district court, Coots amended her
complaint to add Wachovia Bank, N.A., as a defendant. J.A. 78.
The amended complaint invoked only the diversity jurisdiction of
the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. J.A. 80. The
defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the district
court denied without addressing its diversity jurisdiction, J.A.
350-59, and the defendants appeal.
It appears that the district court lacked diversity
jurisdiction of this action. Section 1332(a) of title 28 of the
United States Code requires “complete diversity between the real
and substantial parties in interest.” Roche v. Lincoln Property
Co., 373 F.3d 610, 615 (4th Cir. 2004). Coots is a citizen of
Maryland. J.A. 79. Wachovia Bank, N.A., is a citizen of every
state in which it operates branch offices. 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (“All
national banking associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the
States in which they are respectively located.”); Wachovia Bank,
N.A. v. Schmidt, ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-2061, slip op. at 27 (4th
3
Cir. 2004) (“[W]e hold that a national banking association is
‘located’ under section 1348 in any state where it operates branch
offices.”). It appears that Wachovia Bank operates branch offices
in Maryland and is therefore a citizen of Maryland. See
http://wachovia.via.infonow.net/locator/jsp/ index.jsp (listing
five Wachovia branch offices in the Baltimore area). In fact, at
oral argument, counsel for Wachovia conceded that, if national
banks were deemed citizens of the states in which they operate
branch offices, there would be no diversity jurisdiction here. And
neither party has argued that Wachovia Bank is not a “real and
substantial party in interest.” It therefore appears that complete
diversity is lacking.
Because both Coots and Wachovia Bank appear to be citizens of
Maryland, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand
for a determination of whether there is diversity jurisdiction in
this case.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4