Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Kudakwashe Bhejana sued Bank of America, N.A., alleging breach of contract, negligence, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction.
Bhejana sought $132,588 in damages. He alleged that he resides in Texas and that Bank of America is headquartered in North Carolina, but did not allege his domicile or the bank’s state of incorporation and principal place of business.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower did not resolve the merits of Bhejana’s claims. Instead, the court exercised its continuing duty to examine subject-matter jurisdiction and concluded that the pleadings may support diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims, but did not adequately allege citizenship.
The court ordered Bhejana to file a jurisdictional brief by April 27, 2026, identifying his citizenship and Bank of America’s principal place of business and state of incorporation as of October 24, 2025, the date the complaint was filed. Bank of America may respond by May 4, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts must independently confirm subject-matter jurisdiction throughout litigation.
- For diversity jurisdiction, alleging residence is not enough; an individual must allege domicile.
- A corporate party’s diversity citizenship requires allegations of both its incorporation state and principal place of business.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that a plaintiff’s damages demand alone cannot establish diversity jurisdiction. Even where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the complaint must plead complete diversity with the required citizenship details.