Shari v. Bank Of America
- Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-04946
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Homa Shari v. Bank of America, Judge Cisneros recommended dismissing the case because Shari did not show federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Homa Shari’s case against Bank of America was recommended for dismissal because the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was not established; the recommendation did not bar Shari from filing a claim in a court with jurisdiction.
What happened
Homa Shari v. Bank of America concerns Shari’s filing against Bank of America. Shari represented herself without a lawyer. A magistrate judge ordered her to explain why the case should not be dismissed because the filing did not establish federal jurisdiction.
Shari said she was seeking $50 million for an extremely stressful and painful process, but she did not identify a federal law involved. She also did not allege the parties’ state citizenships or provide facts supporting the claimed amount. The recommendation concluded that these problems did not establish either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
Magistrate Judge Cisneros recommended dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without allowing another amendment, but without preventing Shari from filing a claim in a court that has jurisdiction. The recommendation was subject to objections, and a district judge had not yet taken final action on it.
The detailed version
- Shari v. Bank Of America · No. 3:25-cv-04946
- Cisneros
- July 14, 2025
Background
Homa Shari filed a case against Bank of America. The opinion says Shari represented herself without a lawyer. On June 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Zar A. Cisneros ordered Shari to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s legal authority to hear the dispute.
Shari had indicated that she was relying on federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but she did not identify a federal law involved. She declined to rely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The court also noted that her initial filing did not state the parties’ states of citizenship and appeared to seek $16,629, below the statute’s $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
Shari’s Response
Shari filed a response on July 7, 2025, stating that she was seeking $50 million as compensation for an “extremely stressful + painful” process. The response still did not identify a federal law. The court stated that merely asserting a larger amount was not enough: Shari provided no facts supporting a $50 million claim and did not allege the citizenship of any party. The court therefore concluded that the response did not establish either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
Recommendation and Procedural Status
Judge Cisneros recommended that the case be dismissed on the court’s own initiative for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without leave to amend, but without prejudice to Shari filing a claim in a court with jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” in this context means the recommendation would not bar Shari from bringing a claim in a court that has authority to hear it. The recommendation was not yet a final dismissal: Shari could file objections by July 31, 2025, and the case was to be reassigned to a district judge for further proceedings, including action on the recommendation. The opinion also says the case was separately referred to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin to determine whether it was related to another case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.