Yasmin Kanji v. Bank of America, N.A.
Yasmin Kanji v. Bank of America, N.A.
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 YASMIN KANJI, an ) CV 20-3820-RSWL-SK individual, ) 13 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 14 ) SUBJECT MATTER ) JURISDICTION 15 v. ) ) 16 ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a ) 17 United States corporation; ) and DOES 1 through 25, ) 18 ) ) 19 Defendants. ) 20 Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant” or 21 “BANA”) filed its Notice of Removal [1] on April 27, 22 2020. In its Notice of Removal, with regard to the 23 citizenship of Plaintiff Truong Le (“Plaintiff”), 24 Defendant stated, “Because Plaintiff is a citizen of 25 California, and BANA is a citizen of North Carolina, 26 complete diversity of citizenship exists.” Notice of 27 Removal ¶ 11, ECF No. 1. In support of diversity 28 jurisdiction, Defendant states that “Based on the 1 Complaint, Plaintiff is domiciled in Los Angeles 2 County, California and is therefore a citizen of 3 California.” Id. ¶ 8. But, the allegation in the 4 Complaint as to Plaintiff’s citizenship merely states, 5 “Plaintiff Yasmin Kanji (‘Ms. Kanji’) is an individual 6 who resides within the County of Los Angeles, in 7 California.” Notice of Removal, Attachment #1 8 (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-1. To invoke diversity 9 jurisdiction, Defendant must prove complete diversity 10 of citizenship between the parties.
28 U.S.C. § 1332. 11 A natural person’s state citizenship is “determined by 12 her state of domicile, not her state of residence.” 13 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,
265 F.3d 853, 857(9th 14 Cir. 2001). 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 A notice of removal “alleging diversity of 2 citizenship upon information and belief is 3 insufficient” to prove complete diversity. Bradford v. 4 Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines,
217 F. Supp. 525, 527(N.D.
5 Cal. 1963); see Doherty v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. CV 6 14-7118 PA (Ex),
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131247, at *4 7 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2014) (remanding case when the 8 defendant alleged the plaintiffs’ citizenship based 9 solely on “information and belief”). As such, 10 Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to show, in writing, on or 11 before May 29, 2020, evidence of Plaintiff’s 12 citizenship or this Action will be remanded. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 DATED: May 15, 2020 /s/ Ronald S.W. Lew 16 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior U.S. District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown