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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?