MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This suit, whiсh the plaintiff asks to be remanded for lack of jurisdiction, was originally filed in State Court by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpоration as Receiver for the State Bank of Prairie City, Iowa against the National *887 Surety Corporation. The F.D.I.C. alleged that thе employees of the Prairie City State Bank were bonded by the National Surety Corporation to provide payment to thе bank for losses sustained through any dishonest, fraudulent or criminal act of any employee and that dishonest and unlawful actions of thе President of the bank resulted in an $841,634.62 loss. Defendant, National Surety Corporation, removed the action to this Court invoking the Court’s diversity оf citizenship jurisdiction under Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1332 and federal question jurisdiction under Title 12, U.S.C., Section 1819 and 28 U.S.C., Section 1331.
The F.D.I.C. in a Motion to Remand challenges diversity of citizenship jurisdition upon the basis that the F.D.I.C. is a citizen of the United States, and not of any particular state, conсluding that no diversity jurisdiction is possible. Federal question jurisdiction is challenged because of the provision of 12 U. S.C., Section 1819, which statеs there will be federal question jurisdiction in suits by or against the F.D.I.C. “ . . . except that any such suit to which the Corporation is a party in its capacity as receiver of a State bank and which involves only the rights or obligations of depositors,, creditors, stockholders, аnd such State bank under State law shall not be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States . . . . ”
Contrary to the contention of thе defendant, when an action by or against a receiver is removed to a federal court, the citizenship of the recеiver and not the party he represents is controlling in determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Davies v. Lathrop,
The problem is that the F.D.I.C. is chartered by the federal government and has citizenship in no particular state for diversity of citizenship purposes. Thus no diversity of citizenship can exist. Bankers’ Trust Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co.,
This Court declines to follow the above case decided by the First Circuit on authority of the contrary cases cited above, although the Court feels there is some merit to the argument that the F. D.I.C. has a principal place of business in Washington, D. C. and could be considered a citizen of thе District of Columbia under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1332(c) which provides that “ . a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business. . . . ” (Emphasis added.) However, when Congress passed the amendment to Sec tion 1332(c) in 1958 which made a corporation a citizen of the State of its principal place of business, the intention was to limit jurisdiction of the federal courts. Here the defendant is trying to use this same amendment to expand federal jurisdiction for cases involving federal corporations.
*888 If federal corporations whose principal plaсe of business is located in the District of Columbia were to be considered citizens of that District, diversity jurisdiction would be expanded tо almost all suits involving federally chartered corporations. This would be a result not intended by Congress. Before 1948 all suits by or against any fеderally chartered corporation were deemed to involve a federal question. In 1948 Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1349 was passed by Cоngress providing that a federal question is involved only in suits where over one-half of the stock of the federal corporatiоn is owned by the United States. This Congressional attempt to limit federal court jurisdiction would be nullified by defendant’s interpretation of diversity jurisdiсtion which would give federal jurisdiction to almost all suits involving federally chartered corporations. Without clearer authority, this court declines to expand its jurisdiction into this new area.
The Court also finds no basis for federal question jurisdiction in this suit. Title 12 U.S.C., Section 1819, clеarly states there shall be federal question jurisdiction in suits by or against the F.D.I.C. “ . . . except that such suit to which the Corporation is a party in its capacity as receiver of a State bank and which involves only the rights or obligations of depositors, creditors, stockholders, and suсh State banks under State law shall not be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) The F.D. I.C. is suing in its capacity as Receiver of the Prairie City State Bank in this case to enforce the rights of depositors, creditors, stockholders, and such Stаte bank under State law. This places the case within the meaning of that part of Title 12, U.S.C., Section 1819, limiting federal question jurisdiction.
The defendant urges that the F. D.I.C. can be acting in two capacities as both receiver of the State bank and in the capaсity of insurer of the deposits of the bank. Freeling v. Sebring,
The F.D.I.C. will almost always have an indirect financial interest in any litigation as recеiver of a State bank where it has insured the deposits. If this indirect financial interest of the F.D.I.C. automatically created federal question jurisdiction, the intent of Congress in the above statute to limit federal question jurisdiction would be negated.
Federal courts in the unreported cases of Bank of Pine Apple v. National Surety Corporation, Civil Action No. 4902-68-P (S.D.Ala.1968), and Federal Deposit Insuranсe Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America, Civil Action No. 4915 (E.D.Tex.1968), have also declined to find federal jurisdiction in similar circumstances to the case at point.
Accordingly, it is ordered that this case be remanded to the Iowa District Court in and for Jasper County.