Bhumbla v. PNC Bank, National Association
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:23-cv-01759
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bhumbla v. PNC Bank, Judge Rogers ordered supplemental citizenship information before deciding the remand request.
Sana Bhumbla and defendant Kim Beasley, whose alleged citizenship was relevant to the pending remand request.
What happened
In Bhumbla v. PNC Bank, National Association, Sana Bhumbla asked the court to send the case back to state court, arguing that she and defendant Kim Beasley both reside in California.
The court explained that residence does not establish a person’s state citizenship for diversity purposes; citizenship generally depends on domicile. The court said Bhumbla’s allegation was therefore inadequate as written.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Bhumbla to state whether she could amend her allegations to say that she and Beasley are both California citizens. The court canceled the hearing and said it would decide the request based on the written filings.
The detailed version
- Bhumbla v. PNC Bank, National Association · No. 4:23-cv-01759
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 14, 2023
Background
Sana Bhumbla requested remand, meaning that she asked the federal court to return the case to state court, based on an alleged lack of diversity jurisdiction. She argued that she and defendant Kim Beasley both reside in California.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a natural person’s state citizenship is determined by domicile, not residence. The court understood Bhumbla to mean that she intended to allege that both she and Beasley are citizens of California. It noted that the distinction between residence and citizenship matters and that the defendants argued to the contrary. The court also noted that the defendants had not raised this issue in their removal motion or opposition to remand.
Order
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Bhumbla to file a statement by July 17, 2023, confirming whether she could amend her allegations to state that both she and Beasley are citizens of California. The court vacated the July 18 hearing and stated that it would issue an order on the remand request based on the written filings, without a hearing. This order did not itself decide the remand request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.