Shari v. Bank Of America

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 HOMA SHARI, Case No. 25-cv-04946-LJC

8 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v. FOR DISMISSAL

Defendant. 11

12 On June 18, 2025, the undersigned magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff Homa Shari, pro se, 13 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 14 No. 3. The undersigned noted that Shari had checked a box indicating Shari was asserting federal 15 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but had failed to identify any federal law at issue. 16 Id. at 2. The undersigned also noted that Shari declined to assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and that Shari’s initial filing (which the undersigned construed as a complaint, 18 although it is not captioned with any title) did not establish the requirements for diversity 19 jurisdiction because it did not address any party’s state of citizenship and appeared to seek only 20 $16,629, which is less than the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold for that statute. Id. at 2 21 n.2. The undersigned required Shari to file an amended complaint or other response no later than 22 July 9, 2025, and instructed Shari that the case may be dismissed if Shari’s response failed to 23 “establish[] a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 2–3. 24 Shari filed a document on July 7, 2025 (misdated as 2026) asserting that Shari is now 25 seeking fifty million dollars as compensation for an “extremely stressful + painful” process. ECF 26 No. 5 at 1 (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 27 Shari’s response does not identify any federal law at issue, and therefore does not establish 1 jurisdiction by asserting a larger amount in controversy, at least two issues remain unresolved. 2 First, mere “[c]onclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson 3 v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003)). Shari has provided no 4 factual allegations that might support a claim for fifty million dollars, and thus has not satisfied the 5 amount-in-controversy requirement of § 1332(a). Nor has Shari alleged—even in a conclusory 6 manner—the state of citizenship of any party to the case, as would be necessary to establish 7 diversity of citizenship. 8 Accordingly, Shari’s response did not establish subject matter Jurisdiction as required by 9 the previous Order to Show Cause. The undersigned therefore, and for the reasons stated in the 10 Order to Show Cuse, recommends that this case be DISMISSED sua sponte for lack of subject 11 matter jurisdiction, without leave to amend, but without prejudice to Shari filing a claim in a court 12 of competent jurisdiction. Shari may file objections to this recommendation no later than July 31, 13 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 14 Because not all parties have appeared and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 3 15 || judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case will be reassigned to a district judge for all further a 16 || proceedings, including action on this recommendation for dismissal. The undersigned has 3 17 separately referred this case to the Honorable Araceli Martinez-Olguin to determine whether it is 18 related to case number 24-cv-02318. If Judge Martinez-Olguin determines that the cases are 19 related, this case will be reassigned to her. Otherwise, the case will be reassigned to a randomly 20 selected district judge. 21 22 Dated: July 14, 2025 23 Zar Arty — ‘A J. CISNEROS 25 ited States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28