Behroozi v. Behroozi

Filing 17

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
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAEID BEHROOZI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
ARTECIA BEHROOZI,

C.A. No. 15-536 S

ORDER
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)
(ECF

No.

14)

explaining

why

this

Court

lacks

jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims.

subject

matter

In essence, this

Court has neither diversity jurisdiction because of the domestic
relations exception (see Irish v. Irish, 842 F.3d 736, 740-41
(1st

Cir.

Plaintiff’s

2016)),

nor

complaint

federal

question

insufficiently

jurisdiction

alleges

a

because

cognizable

substantive due process claim (see Najas Realty, LLC v. Seekonk
Water Dist., 821 F.3d 134, 145 (1st Cir. 2016)).

Magistrate

Judge Sullivan recommends that this Court provide Plaintiff with
thirty days from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint

that

rehabilitates

the

defects

identified

in

her

Complaint.
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the R&R, asserting that
this Court does in fact have diversity jurisdiction over her
claims

because

claims

and

she

because

is

alleging

she

has

breach

of

sufficiently

contract
pled

and

fraud

allegations

to

invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 1 (Obj. 4, ECF
No. 15.)

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.”
742.

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
Dunn

v.

added)).

Cometa,

238

F.3d

38,

41

(1st

Cir.

2001)

(emphasis

“The domestic relations exception governs claims over

domestic relations decrees even where they are cloaked in the
1

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.
2

trappings

of

another

type

of

claim.”

Id.

quotations, citations, and brackets omitted).
complaint

articulates

allegations

of

at

742

(internal

While Plaintiff’s

fraud

and

breach

of

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.

Plaintiff

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
Court

has

jurisdiction,

the

complaint

dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 8, 2017

3

shall

be

summarily