Nanney v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM
JAMES DAVID NANNEY, )
)
Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM AND
) RECOMMENDATION
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
This matter is before the Court for case management purposes as well as
on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4), which has been referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for the entry of a recommendation.
I. Background
On January 9, 2026, James David Nanney (“Plaintiff”), who is
proceeding	
pro se, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Henderson
County, North Carolina against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Defendant”). Doc. 1-
1. Plaintiff alleges as follows:
The plaintiff open [sic] a checking account in 2014 at
Wells Fargo Bank, Wells Fargo Bank closed the
plaintiff [sic] account. In a scam to commit fraud G.S.
14-100 so the Defendant could use the North Carolina
unclaim [sic] proptery [sic] to extort the plaintiff [sic]
money and system of F.D.I.C. insurance and to slander
the plaintiff’s name. In voilation [sic] of extortion G.S.
14-455 and in voilation [sic] of slander G.S. 14-47. The
plaintiff was sent to prison in 2014 and now has tried
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 7

2
to claimed [sic] his account money from North
Carolina unclaimed properly. No one has sent
anything from the unclaim [sic] property of North
Carolina. The plaintiff is claim [sic] for releif [sic] of $3
Billion Dollars of this action. The plaintiff is also his
own attorney in this action.
Doc. 1-1 at 4-5.
On February 6, 2026, Defendant removed this matter, contending that
diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the parties
are citizens of different States and because the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Doc. 1. The same day, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 4.
On February 20, 2026, the undersigned directed Defendant to file, on or
before March 13, 2026, a brief describing in further detail its contention as to
why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Any response
by Plaintiff was to be filed no later than 14 days after Defendant’s filing was
made, and any reply by Defendant was to be filed no later than 7 days following
Plaintiff’s response. Doc. 8. The Court also extended Plaintiff’s deadline to
respond to the Motion to Dismiss to and including March 13, 2026. Doc. 9.
Defendant filed a memorandum regarding subject matter jurisdiction on
March 9, 2026. Doc. 10
Plaintiff has not responded to either the Motion to Dismiss or
Defendant’s subject matter jurisdiction brief, and the time for doing so has
passed.
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 7

3
II. Discussion
Because Defendant removed this matter, it bears the burden of
establishing that federal jurisdiction exists. See Mulcahey Columbia Organic
Chems. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (“The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction is placed upon the party seeking removal.”); Bradley v.
Veterinary Orthopedic Sports Med. Grp., No. CV DKC 19-2662, 2020 WL
5526559, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 15, 2020) (“When a defendant removes an action
from state court, the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction, including in this case the amount in controversy
for diversity jurisdiction.”); Atkinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 5:25-
CV-00443-M-RN, 2025 WL 3491134, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2025), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 5:25-CV-00443-M-RN, 2025 WL 3490540
(E.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2025) (“the defendant who removed the case bears the burden
of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”).
The question here is whether Defendant has carried that burden.
Plaintiff has alleged that he is entitled to recover damages in an amount
that far exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, and Defendant relies upon
Plaintiff’s representation in arguing that removal was proper. Generally, this
would be acceptable because “[i]n most cases, the ‘sum claimed by the plaintiff
controls’ the amount in controversy determination.” JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier,
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 7

4
624 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red
Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)).
However, “where the court determines to a legal certainty that the
plaintiff cannot recover the amount it seeks or seeks an amount that the
plaintiff is not entitled to for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction,” dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction is proper. Ministry of Defence of State of Kuwait v.
Naffa, 105 F.4th 154, 159 (4th Cir. 2024). That is, “a district court must
exercise jurisdiction unless ‘the legal impossibility of recovery’ virtually
negates the plaintiff's good faith in asserting the claim.” Id. (quoting JTH Tax,
Inc., 624 F.3d at 638 (internal quotation omitted); see also Ballenger v.
Hartford Life Ins. Co., No. CV 6:08-2354-HMH, 2008 WL 11349762, at *2
(D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2008) (“This is not to say that a litigant can establish federal
jurisdiction by asserting an amount in controversy that is frivolous or
unsupported by the evidence.”).
And in this case, while contending that Plaintiff’s claims are sufficient
to support subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff’s
“Complaint is frivolous.” Doc. 10 at 1. In other words, Defendant contends that
Plaintiff’s recovery of any amount of damages is legally impossible.1
1 In its subject matter jurisdiction memorandum, Defendant states: “Plaintiff seeks
to recover $3 billion from Wells Fargo in a frivolous lawsuit. Candidly, Wells Fargo
removed this case to federal court and moved to dismiss it because doing so is often
cheaper than having a hearing in state court.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Plaintiff has not challenged this position or provided any information
that would support a finding that Plaintiff is, in good faith, seeking an amount
sufficient to support the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction (let alone $3 billion
dollars).
Accordingly, the undersigned is not persuaded that Defendant has met
its burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. See McIntyre v. Westwood
Townhomes, LLC, No. 7:25-CV-7189-DCC-WSB, 2025 WL 3906494, at *11
(D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2025) (“While ‘the measure of the amount in controversy is
derived from the complainant's demand for relief,’ a litigant cannot ‘establish
federal jurisdiction by asserting an amount in controversy that is frivolous or
unsupported by the evidence.’”) (quoting Ballenger, 2008 WL 11349762, at *2;
Silva v. Walt Disney World, No. 1:21CV912, 2022 WL 4585811, at *2 (M.D.N.C.
Sept. 29, 2022) (concluding that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to meet Section
1332’s monetary threshold where the plaintiff sought a total of $2,750,100.00
in damages after he was burned by 3 or 4 hot droplets of water and explaining
that “the sums proposed qualify as ‘both fanciful and delusional, and [the
Complaint] cannot support a finding that this case involves [more than]
$75,000 in controversy’”) (internal citations omitted), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-CV-912, 2023 WL 3661349 (M.D.N.C. May
25, 2023).
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 5 of 7

6
III. Recommendation
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY
RECOMMENDS that this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of
Henderson County, North Carolina, with the pending Motion to Dismiss being
reserved for further action by the state court as it may deem appropriate.
Signed: April 17, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Time for Objections
The parties are hereby advised that, pursuant to Title 28, United States
Code, Section 636, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), written
objections to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation
contained herein must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of same.
Responses to the objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service
of the objections. Failure to file objections to this Memorandum and
Recommendation with the presiding District Judge will preclude the parties
from raising such objections on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 140
(1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Case 1:26-cv-00040-MR-WCM Document 11 Filed 04/17/26 Page 7 of 7