Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

6 Citing cases

  1. iHeart Commc'ns, Inc. v. Benefit St. Partners LLC

    Civil Action No. SA-17-CV-00009-XR (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Similarly instructive on the nexus required between the Edge Act entity and the offshore financial transaction giving rise to a suit are two cases involving the sale of residential mortgage-based securities. Sealink Funding Ltd. v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., 12 CIV. 1397 LTS HBP, 2012 WL 4794450 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2012); Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 954 F. Supp. 2d 223, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). In both cases, plaintiffs brought state law claims based on misrepresentations made in documents and materials related to offerings of the RMBSs.

  2. Kirschner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

    17 Civ. 6334 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2018)

    The fact that other [d]efendants ultimately decided sell the [residential mortgage-backed securities] to foreign entities could well have been fortuitous as far as [the Edge Act bank] was concerned. That decision was also far downstream from [the Edge Act bank's] participation in the packaging of [residential mortgage-backed securities.]"); see also Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 954 F. Supp. 2d 223, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (connection between international transaction and Edge Act bank found insufficient for exercise of jurisdiction because Edge Act bank "did not directly sell any securities to the [foreign] plaintiffs; rather, the underwriters did"). Here, Chase transacted directly with foreign entities.

  3. Luby's Fuddruckers Restaraunts, LLC v. Visa Inc.

    342 F. Supp. 3d 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    For removal to be proper, the transactions involving international or foreign banking have to be attributed to the Edge Act corporation. Id. ; see alsoLandesbank Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp. , 954 F.Supp.2d 223, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction because there was no connection between an Edge Act corporation and the foreign transaction in question); Dexia SA/NV v. Bear, Stearns & Co. , 945 F.Supp.2d 426, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("[B]ecause defendants relied solely on the origination of the eighteen Virgin Islands mortgages to support removal under the Edge Act, and those loans were not originated by [the Edge Act corporation-defendant], this case does not ‘arise out of’ any ‘offshore banking or financial transaction of [the] federally chartered corporation.’ " (citing Am. Int'l Grp. , 712 F.3d at 784 ) ); Sealink Funding Ltd. v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. , No. 12-CV-1397, 2012 WL 4794450, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2012) (finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Edge Act corporation did not "originate[ ] territorial mortgages, or ... participate[ ] in the actual sale of the RMBS [Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities] to buyers, domestic or abroad," but rather, o

  4. Comunale v. Rackover

    17 Civ. 5689 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2017)

    "Where a removal is challenged, the removing party 'bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction is proper.'" Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 954 F. Supp. 2d 223, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321, 327 (2d Cir. 2011)). "It frequently is said that federal courts should strictly construe the general removal statute and resolve doubts in favor of remand."

  5. R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. Allianz Ins. Co.

    15 Civ. 00166 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015)   2 Legal Analyses

    "Where a removal is challenged, the removing party 'bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction is proper.'" Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 954 F. Supp. 2d 223, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321, 327 (2d Cir. 2011)). "It frequently is said that federal courts should strictly construe the general removal statute and resolve doubts in favor of remand."

  6. Gutchess Lumber Co. v. Wieder

    5:13-CV-1013 (FJS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Recognizing the "complicated nature of ERISA and, particularly, ERISA's preemption provisions" when denying the plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees for improper removal

    When a plaintiff challenges the defendant's removal of the action, the defendant "'bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction is proper.'" Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg v. Capital One Fin. Corp., Nos. 12 Civ. 5907, 12 Civ. 5909, 12 Civ. 5911, 2013 WL 3743161, *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2013) (quoting Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321, 327 (2d Cir. 2011)). Generally, a court will construe the removal statute narrowly and resolve any doubts against removability.