Opinion
02 Civ. 4711 (LAK)
June 24, 2002
ORDER
Plaintiff shall show cause, on or before July 10, 2002, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in this case purportedly is premised on diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant. Among the issues raised by a cursory review of the complaint are the following:
1. A national banking association such as plaintiff is a citizen of both the state in which its principal place of business is located and that containing the location set forth in its certificate. Firstar Bank, N.A. v. Faul, 253 F.3d 982, 994 (7th Cir. 2001). The complaint does not allege the location of the plaintiff set forth in its certificate and therefore fails sufficiently to allege complete diversity between plaintiff and defendant.
2. The complaint avers that plaintiff "is acting by and through ARCap Special Servicing, Inc. (`ARCAP Servicing') . . . pursuant to a Power of Attorney . . . authorizing ARCAP Servicing to prosecute this action on its behalf." Plaintiff should address the question whether the proper plaintiff in this action is ARCAP Servicing and, irrespective of the answer to that question, whether the citizenship of ARCAP Servicing is material to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whichever entity is the proper plaintiff, the action purportedly is brought for the benefit of certificate holders of the Mortgage Capital Funding, Inc. multifamily/commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 1998-MC1. Plaintiff should address the question whether the citizenship of the certificate holders is material to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.