Chiang v. Afifi

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING #8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on May 10, 2024. (amolc2, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TINA CHIANG,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SABRINA AFIFI,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-01665-AMO
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
CLOSING CASE
Re: Dkt. No. 8

12
13

This is an unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff Tina Chiang in Alameda County

14

Superior Court against Defendant Sabrina Afifi. ECF 1. This is the third time Defendant has

15

removed the same unlawful detainer action from state court. The two prior cases were both

16

remanded to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Order Adopting Report and

17

Recommendation and Remanding Case, Chiang v. Afifi, No. 23-cv-06235-JD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1,

18

2024), ECF No. 13; Remand Order, Chiang v. Afifi, No. 24-cv-01342-JD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12.,

19

2024), ECF No. 6. In the instant matter, Chiang brings a single cause of action for unlawful

20

detainer.

21

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore’s Report and

22

Recommendation to Remand to State Court, ECF 8, as well Defendant Sabrina Afifi’s objections

23

to the report. ECF 11. The Court finds the Report correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and

24

adopts it in every respect.

25

Afifi objects to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that there is federal question

26

jurisdiction because, as detailed in the notice of removal, Chiang allegedly discriminated against

27

her in violation of her civil rights and the Fair Housing Act. ECF 11 at 14-18; see ECF 1 at 4-9.

28

A defendant may not create federal question jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice

1

of removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Thus, Afifi’s claims or

2

defenses cannot form the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction, see Provincal Gov’t of Marinduque v.

3

Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009), and Afifi’s objections fail to demonstrate

4

that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and

5

Recommendation and remands the case to Alameda County Superior Court. The Clerk’s Office is

6

requested to close the case. No further filings will be accepted.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2024
______________________________________
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2