Opinion
4:23-cv-04329-YGR
10-10-2023
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Darryl Laurinda Jones, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT; AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION DKT. NOS. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
The Court carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Cisneros's Report and Recommendation to Remand Case to Superior Court (Dkt. No. 8) (the “Report”) as well as defendant's filings objecting to the Report. (See Dkt. Nos. 10-11, 14-16.) The Court finds the Report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it with respect to the jurisdictional analysis contained therein. The Court finds defendant's objection unresponsive to that analysis and overrules it on that basis.
To the extent defendant seeks an extension of time to formulate a “proper opposition” to the Report, such request is DENIED. Notwithstanding the denial, the Court reviewed defendants filings at Dkt. Nos. 10-11 and 14-16. The Court determines such filings do not articulate a plausible theory of how this Court could exercise jurisdiction over this case. Instead, they suggest defendant seeks to bring a False Claims Act counterclaim against plaintiff. For the reasons set forth in the Report, even if such a claim were cognizable, it would not confer jurisdiction on this Court. An extension permitting defendant to further develop this theory would be futile.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Report:
1. The action is REMANDED to San Francisco Superior Court because this Court lacks jurisdiction.
2. Defendant's various applications and motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 7, 15) are DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate court, if appropriate.
The Court does not adopt the Report's reasoning insofar as it recommends denying as moot defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) Good cause showing and to avoid any collection efforts being initiated against defendant, the Court GRANTS such application.
Defendant is advised that this is now the second time her unlawful detainer action has been remanded to state court for the exact same reasons. See Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Jones, Case No. 3:23-cv-03369-CRB, ECF No. 8; ECF No. 12. The Court dissuades defendant from mounting another attempt to remove this case to federal court so long as the underlying particulars remain the same. Doing so will likely result in remand to state court, yet again.
This Order terminates the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.