Shari v. Bank Of America
- Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-04946
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Shari v. Bank of America, Judge Cisneros ordered Homa Shari to explain federal jurisdiction or amend her complaint before possible dismissal.
Homa Shari must explain the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction or file an amended complaint by July 9, 2025. Bank of America is the defendant, and the court stated that Shari must serve it with the summons and complaint.
What happened
In Shari v. Bank of America, Homa Shari, representing herself, alleges that an unauthorized cashier’s check removed money from her account and that Bank of America did not resolve the problem.
The court questioned whether it has authority to hear the case because Shari identified only “Banking,” “CORPORATION,” and did not identify a federal law, constitutional provision, or treaty supporting her claim. The court ordered her to respond or file an amended complaint by July 9, 2025.
Judge Lisa J. Cisneros did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, she warned that the case may be dismissed if Shari does not establish federal jurisdiction, and reminded her that she must also serve Bank of America under the federal service rules.
The detailed version
- Shari v. Bank Of America · No. 3:25-cv-04946
- Cisneros
- June 18, 2025
Background
Homa Shari, representing herself, sued Bank of America. Shari alleges that money was wrongfully removed from her account through an unauthorized cashier’s check and that Bank of America did not resolve the issue after she complained.
Shari had brought an earlier related case against Bank of America. That case was dismissed without prejudice after Shari did not serve Bank of America within the required time, despite receiving an extension.
Jurisdiction concern
Federal courts may hear only cases within their limited legal authority, called subject-matter jurisdiction. Shari checked the form complaint’s box asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but she did not identify a federal law, treaty, or constitutional provision involved. In response to the question asking which federal law or right was involved, she wrote only “Banking,” “CORPORATION.” The court also stated that the complaint did not make the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) apparent.
Order
The court ordered Shari to show why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. By July 9, 2025, she must either file a response explaining why the current complaint should proceed or file an amended complaint establishing federal jurisdiction. An amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all claims, defendants, and factual allegations she wishes to pursue.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It warned that the case may be dismissed if Shari does not respond or establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that Shari must serve Bank of America with the summons and complaint as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that a case-management conference was then scheduled for September 11, 2025, but that the date could be changed or the case could be decided earlier.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.