KEB Hana Bank USA, N.A. v. Campbell
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-01864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In KEB Hana Bank v. Campbell, Judge Castel required clearer citizenship allegations or ordered remand to state court.
The defendant must provide adequate allegations establishing the parties’ citizenship within 30 days, or the case will be sent back to New York state court. The opinion does not state the citizenship of either party.
What happened
KEB Hana Bank USA, N.A. v. Campbell came to federal court after the defendant removed it from New York state court, claiming the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court said the removal notice did not adequately establish either party’s citizenship. Living in Florida does not necessarily mean the defendant is domiciled there, and having an office in New York does not show where the bank’s main office is listed in its articles of association.
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered the defendant to amend the removal notice within 30 days. If the notice is not amended, the action will be remanded to the New York Supreme Court in New York County.
The detailed version
- KEB Hana Bank USA, N.A. v. Campbell · No. 1:21-cv-01864
- P. Castel
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
The defendant removed the action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Notice of Removal claimed federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 in controversy and complete diversity, meaning that opposing parties are citizens of different states.
Jurisdictional Allegations
The Notice of Removal described the defendant as an individual residing in Florida and the plaintiff as having “an office” in New York. The court explained that residence and domicile are not the same: a person may live in one place while maintaining a legal domicile elsewhere. The court also explained that a national bank’s citizenship is determined by the state identified in its articles of association as the location of its main office, not merely by the state where it has an office.
Because the notice did not adequately allege the citizenship of either party, the court found that the basis for diversity jurisdiction had not been properly established. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute between the bank and the defendant.
Order
The court ordered the defendant to amend the Notice of Removal within 30 days. If the notice is not amended, the action will be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The order therefore addressed federal subject-matter jurisdiction rather than the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.