Barney Ng v. Wells Fargo Foothill Llc, a Delaware limited liability company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARNEY NG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company;
WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56508
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08942-MMM-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 23, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Barney Ng appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
with prejudice. Ng contends that the district court improperly exercised
FILED
DEC 07 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction despite a lack of complete diversity of citizenship. On the merits, Ng
posits that the district court misapplied California law in holding that Wells Fargo
Foothill LLC was “not a stranger” to the contract for the purpose of assessing Ng’s
claim of intentional interference with contractual relations.
1. The district court had jurisdiction because there is complete diversity
of citizenship among the parties. As a national bank, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. “is a
citizen only of the state in which its main office is located.” Rouse v. Wachovia
Mortgage, FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 2014). Ng is a citizen of California,
Wells Fargo Foothill LLC is a citizen of Delaware, and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. is a
citizen of South Dakota, where its main office is located, thereby establishing
complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.
2. Since the district court rendered its decision, we have decided two
cases that potentially undermine the district court’s reliance on Marin Tug &
Barge, Inc. v. Westport Petroleum, Inc., 271 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2001). See Fresno
Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014)
(noting that several recent decisions from the California appellate courts “have
rejected Marin Tug’s interpretation”). In United National Maintenance, Inc. v. San
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Diego Convention Center, Inc., 766 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2014), we noted that
Marin Tug addressed intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
rather than intentional interference with contractual relations. As in Fresno
Motors, we also discussed the California appellate courts’ disagreement with the
analysis in Marin Tug. See id. at 1007-08.
Because the district court did not have the benefit of these decisions when
making its ruling, we remand for the district court to consider the impact of these
cases, if any, on its prior ruling.
REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --