Jun v. Bank of America, N.A.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-10301
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jun v. Bank of America, Judge Oetken dismissed the case without prejudice because diversity jurisdiction was absent.
The plaintiff and all defendants were affected because the court dismissed the entire case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
What happened
In Jun v. Bank of America, N.A., Zhu Jun, a citizen of France, sued Bank of America, N.A., and other defendants in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because foreign citizens appeared on both sides of the case. Alfredo Saenz Abad was identified as a Spanish citizen, and defendant Ceenaj appeared to be a foreign citizen; other defendants were apparently U.S. citizens.
Judge Oetken ruled that the court lacked authority to hear the case and dismissed the matter without prejudice. He directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jun v. Bank of America, N.A. · No. 1:22-cv-10301
- James Oetken
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Zhu Jun, also known as Jun Jane Legall, filed the lawsuit under the court’s diversity jurisdiction, a form of federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount or nature of the dispute. The opinion states that Jun is a citizen of France.
The defendants included Bank of America, N.A.; Bank Santander, N.A.; Daniel Smith; Frederick E. Hurd; David Grayson; Alfredo Saenz Abad; and Ceenaj. The opinion identifies Saenz Abad as a Spanish citizen. It states that the other listed individual and bank defendants were apparently U.S. citizens. The court also said that Ceenaj appeared to be a foreign citizen because it was incorporated in the United Kingdom and the complaint alleged only that it had a place of business, rather than its principal place of business, in the United States.
Jurisdictional Ruling
The court held that diversity jurisdiction did not exist because foreign citizens were present on both sides of the case. It explained that federal diversity jurisdiction is unavailable when one side includes both U.S. citizens and foreign citizens while the opposing side includes only foreign citizens. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case—it was required to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that the matter be DISMISSED without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.