Halifax Corporation v. Wachovia Bank NA , 192 F. App'x 196 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1952
HALIFAX CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-03-578-GBL)
Submitted: May 8, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Ludwig, Jr., LUDWIG & ROBINSON, P.L.L.C., Washington,
D.C.; Henry St. John FitzGerald, Arlington, Virginia, for
Appellant. Grady C. Frank, Jr., Thomas C. Junker, LECLAIR RYAN,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Halifax Corporation brought a civil action against
Wachovia Bank, N.A., asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 (2000). Relying on our decision in Wachovia Bank v.
Schmidt, 388 F.3d 414 (4th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 126 S. Ct. 941(2006), Wachovia moved to dismiss for lack of diversity
jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. We vacate
the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
We review de novo a district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). The
district court should grant the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss
“only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and
the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
Evans, 166 F.3d at 647 (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991)).
In Schmidt, we held that national banks are “located”
under 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (2000), in every state in which they operate
a branch office. 388 F.3d at 432. The district court relied on
our decision to find that because Wachovia has branch offices in
Virginia and Halifax is a citizen of Virginia, diversity
jurisdiction did not exist under § 1348. While this case was
pending on direct review, the Supreme Court reversed this court’s
judgment in Schmidt, resolving a circuit split and holding that for
- 2 -
the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a bank is “located” in the
state designated in its articles of association as its main office
under § 1348. Schmidt, 126 S. Ct. at 952.
“When [the Supreme Court] applies a rule of federal law
to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling
interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive
effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all
events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our
announcement of the rule.” Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation,
509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993). We find that because this case was pending
on direct review at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Schmidt, it applies to this case.
Because the parties are citizens of different states, and
the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold set forth
in § 1332, the requirements for jurisdiction have been satisfied.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -