Shari v. Russell
- Susan Illston
- 3:24-cv-08595
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Shari v. Russell, Judge Illston ordered Shari to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Self-represented plaintiff Homa Shari, whose lawsuit was ordered to be explained because the court found no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction; defendant Susan Russell had not yet been served.
What happened
In Shari v. Russell, self-represented plaintiff Homa Shari sued her neighbor, Susan Russell, alleging sexual harassment, phone hacking, and other harm. Russell had not been served with the lawsuit.
The court found that the complaint did not identify a violation of federal law and that both parties were citizens of California, so neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction was shown. The court ordered Shari to explain in writing by April 25, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed.
Judge Susan Illston said Shari could identify a federal law and explain how Russell violated it; the court would then decide whether to allow an amended complaint. The court had not yet dismissed the case, but said it would do so if Shari did not respond.
The detailed version
- Shari v. Russell · No. 3:24-cv-08595
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Homa Shari filed this lawsuit against Susan Russell on November 29, 2024. The opinion says Shari and Russell are neighbors. Shari alleges that Russell sexually harassed her, hacked her phone, and used “special skills” associated with the Vietnam War to harm and brainwash people. The complaint lists one cause of action for “severe sexual harassment.”
Russell had not been served with the complaint and summons. The court had granted Shari several extensions of the deadline for service. Shari stated that she could not serve Russell because Russell was “hacking” her phone.
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that it has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. It concluded that the complaint did not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a claim arising under federal law. The court stated that Shari’s complaint did not allege a violation of any federal law. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because the opinion says both Shari and Russell are citizens of California.
Order
The court ordered Shari to show cause in writing by April 25, 2025, meaning she must explain why the lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that, if Shari believes she can bring a claim under a federal statute, she should identify the law and explain how Russell violated it. The court would then evaluate whether Shari should be allowed to file an amended complaint.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that it would dismiss the case if Shari failed to respond. The order was signed by United States District Judge Susan Illston on April 17, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.