Bin-Jiang Tao v. Citibank N. A.

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Bin-Jiang Tao (“Tao”) appeals the district court’s (1) denial of his motion to remand based on the existence of federal jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 632 and (2) dismissal of his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as barred by New York’s statutes of limitations. We affirm.

The district court properly found jurisdiction and denied Tao’s Motion to Remand. First, contrary to Tao’s assertions, under the plain language of § 632 “any defendant” may remove an action to federal court. See Wenzoski v. Citicorp, 480 F.Supp. 1056, 1058 (N.D.Cal.1979); compare 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) (requiring removal by “the defendant or defendants”). Thus, removal was proper even if Comput-ershare, NA failed to join the removal petition.

Second, Citibank satisfied the requirement under § 632 that the defendant must be an American corporation. Tao, in his Complaint alleges Citibank was an American corporation, and he provides no reason for us to doubt this allegation. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992).

Third, Tao’s contention that his claims based on the 1933 transaction do not arise from international banking or financial operations and…