Omenka v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Background

Lenora Williams Omenka filed a complaint asserting six claims under state law against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. The complaint also sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Omenka alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and attempted to establish diversity jurisdiction by alleging that she was a citizen of California, Select Portfolio Servicing was a citizen of Utah, and Deutsche Bank was a citizen of New York.

Jurisdictional issue

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The court stated that a domestic corporation's citizenship depends on its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Omenka did not allege that Utah was either Select Portfolio Servicing's state of incorporation or its principal place of business.

The court further explained that a national bank is a citizen only of the state where its main office is located. Relying on publicly available records from the Comptroller of the Currency, of which it took judicial notice, the court found that Deutsche Bank is a national bank with its main office in Los Angeles, California. The court therefore concluded that Deutsche Bank was a California citizen, like Omenka, and that Omenka had failed to allege—and could not allege—that the parties were diverse.

Order

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, Judge Maxine M. Chesney directed Omenka to show cause in writing by September 27, 2024, why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that dismissal would be without prejudice to refiling the claims in state court and explained that Omenka could file an amended complaint clearly identifying the state or states of which each defendant was a citizen.

Because of the jurisdictional problems and the absence of a showing of imminent harm requiring immediate action, the court continued the preliminary-injunction hearing from September 20, 2024, to October 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7.