Behroozi v. Behroozi
ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendations.; denying as moot 16 Motion for Judicial Notice; Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before 4/7/17. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 15536. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
C.A. No. 15-536 S
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Artecia Behroozi’s Complaint seeks to alter and
enforce a property settlement agreement that formed the basis of
a final divorce decree entered by the Rhode Island Family Court
in 2006. (ECF No. 1.)
On November 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Patricia A. Sullivan filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims.
In essence, this
Court has neither diversity jurisdiction because of the domestic
relations exception (see Irish v. Irish, 842 F.3d 736, 740-41
substantive due process claim (see Najas Realty, LLC v. Seekonk
Water Dist., 821 F.3d 134, 145 (1st Cir. 2016)).
Judge Sullivan recommends that this Court provide Plaintiff with
thirty days from the date of this Order to file an amended
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the R&R, asserting that
this Court does in fact have diversity jurisdiction over her
invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 1 (Obj. 4, ECF
As discussed in the R&R, however, Irish is clear that
the Court is to look past a plaintiff’s “characterization of her
action . . . to the reality of what is going on.”
842 F.3d at
The domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction
applies when “the claim at issue is one to obtain, alter or end
a divorce, alimony or child custody decree.” Id. at 741 (quoting
“The domestic relations exception governs claims over
domestic relations decrees even where they are cloaked in the
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R was
filed two days after the fourteen-day period for filing an
objection to the R&R had expired. See LR Cv 72(c)(1) (“Failure
to file specific objections . . . constitute[s] waiver of the
right to review by the district judge and the right to appeal
the Court’s decision.”); see also United States v. ValenciaCopete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).
Her objection is,
therefore, technically waived, as is her right to appeal the
Court’s decision to accept the R&R.
quotations, citations, and brackets omitted).
contract, it is clearly seeking to both alter and enforce the
terms of the property settlement agreement.
The Court therefore ACCEPTS the R&R (ECF No. 14) and adopts
the recommendations therein.
In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
may file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date
of this Order.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint
within thirty days, or does not plead claims over which this
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: March 8, 2017
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?