Daniel Schmidt, a former Wachovia customer, sued the bank in state court after the IRS determined that the investment strategy Wachovia had recommended was illegal. Wachovia, which is headquartered in Charlotte, NC, successfully sought to remove the case to federal court because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties. After an adverse decision on the merits, Wachovia appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rather than address the decision on the merits, however, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the case altogether. It determined that the federal system never had jurisdiction to hear the case because Wachovia had branches in South Carolina, and therefore there was no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Wachovia appealed to the Supreme Court because it hopes to keep the case from being retried in state court.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
1. For the purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, is a national banking association a citizen of every state in which it maintains a branch, or is its citizenship more limited?
2. Is the word "located" as used in 28 U.S.C. ? 1348, the statute governing the citizenship of national banks for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, ambiguous?