Gittens v. Navy Federal Credit Union et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Erica Christine Gittens,
Plaintiff,
v.
Navy Federal Credit Union, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04334-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union’s Notice of Removal
(Doc. 1). The Court reviews this matter sua sponte, pursuant to its independent obligation
to assess whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94
(2010).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Erica C. Gittens filed this action in the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa
County on October 16, 2025, under case number CV2025-029726. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Ms.
Gittens alleges that Navy Federal wrongfully enforced a discharged promissory note,
interfered 	with 	perfected 	security 	interests, 	and 	converted 	collateral 	despite 	full
performance. (Doc. 1-1 at 8.) On November 19, 2025, Navy Federal removed to this Court.
(Doc. 1.)
The asserted basis for removal is diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 2.) Ms. Gittens is a
resident of Glendale, Arizona, seeking damages in excess of $417,500. (Id.) Navy Federal
is a federally chartered credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia. (Id.)
Case 2:25-cv-04334-MTL Document 7 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts possess limited jurisdiction and only have “that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (citation modified).
As such, federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-
matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp., 559 U.S. at 94.
A federal court, therefore, “may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler v.
Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.”) “The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that the requirements for removal jurisdiction have been met.” Cnty. Of San Mateo v.
Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733, 746 (9th Cir. 2022). Removal jurisdiction is construed in
favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005).
Diversity jurisdiction is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which grants courts authority to
hear cases arising under state law only where there is complete diversity of the parties, and
the statutory amount-in-controversy (over $75,000) is satisfied. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
This means that no defendant can be a resident of the same state as any plaintiff. Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978).
III. 	DISCUSSION
On review of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, the Court finds that this
action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Scholastic Ent., Inc. v.
Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that a district court may
sua sponte dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without notice and an
opportunity to respond).
Navy Federal is a federally chartered credit union. (Doc. 1 at 2.) A “corporation
chartered pursuant to an Act of Congress with activities in different states . . . [is] not a
citizen of any state for diversity jurisdiction purposes.” Bankers’ Trust Co. v. Texas & Pac.
Ry., Co., 241 U.S. 295, 309-10 (1916). Although the Ninth Circuit has not squarely
addressed the question of whether federally chartered credit unions are citizens of any state,
Case 2:25-cv-04334-MTL Document 7 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
it has held that there is no subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation because, as an instrumentality of the
federal government, the FSLIC was not a citizen of any state. Hancock Fin. Corp. v. Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 492 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1974). Otherwise, diversity
jurisdiction would extend to almost all suits involving federally chartered corporations. Id.;
see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. V. Nat’l Sur. Corp., 345 F. Supp. 885, 888 (S.D. Iowa
1972).
In light of Hancock, courts in the Ninth Circuit find that a federal credit union is not
considered a citizen of any particular state for the purpose of establishing diversity of
citizenship. See Pierson v. Alaska USA Fed. Credit Union, No. 19-CV-1685-RAJ, 2020
WL 747857 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2020); Gilpin v. CU Capital Market Solutions, LLC,
No. 20-CV-00589-MMD-WGC, 2021 WL 4150933 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2021) (explaining
that “Hancock implicitly rejected application of the principal place of business analysis to
federally chartered entities”). * They reason that permitting diversity jurisdiction “would
contravene the statute’s primary purpose to reduce the caseload in the federal courts.”
Pierson, 2020 WL 747857 at *2 (citing S. Rep. No. 1830 (1983)). Moreover, legislation
providing 	state 	citizenship 	for 	certain 	federally 	chartered 	corporations 	would 	be
superfluous if § 1332(c) already applied to federally chartered corporations. Id.
Navy Federal is a federally chartered credit union, so the Court concludes that it is
not a citizen of any state for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. The court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Because subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must remand the case to
the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time
* A district court in the Ninth Circuit found that Navy Federal is a citizen of its principal
place of business. Lloyd v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, No. 17-CV-1280-BAS-RBB, 2019
WL 2269958, at *9-14 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2019). But the court made its finding from a
posture much different than here. There, the case proceeded to final approval of a class
action settlement after the court previously assumed jurisdiction. Id. At final approval, the
court declined “to depart from its earlier assumption that diversity jurisdiction exists.” Id.
at 14.
Case 2:25-cv-04334-MTL Document 7 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to remand this case
back to the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04334-MTL Document 7 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 4