Sabrina Afifi v. ZCA Homes LLC, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SABRINA AFIFI, Case No. 25-cv-06702-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING CASE 11 ZCA HOMES LLC, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants based on an alleged scheme of 14 fraudulent conduct and racketeering related to her rental property. Compl. (dkt. 1). 15 Magistrate Judge Westmore reviewed the complaint and issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) to dismiss the case with prejudice. R&R (dkt. 9). Plaintiff did 17 not object to the R&R. Plaintiff brought five claims: fraudulent transfer, RICO, mail 18 fraud, abuse of process, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. at 3–4. Judge 19 Westmore concluded that each of Plaintiff’s claims fail. See R&R. The Court now adopts 20 Judge Westmore’s R&R and dismisses the case. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 A. Fraudulent Transfer (Cal. Civ. Code § 3439 et seq.) 23 Judge Westmore determined that Plaintiff was not a creditor and lacked standing to 24 bring this claim. R&R at 3. The Court agrees. “The California fraudulent transfer laws on 25 their face only confer standing on a creditor.” Infinity Glob. Consulting Grp., Inc. v. 26 Tilray, Inc., 2021 WL 880391, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2021) (citing In re Dunn, 2006 WL 27 6810930, at *8 (9th Cir B.A.P. Oct. 31, 2006)). Plaintiff fails to plead that she is a 1 Accordingly, this claim fails. 2 B. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962) 3 Judge Westmore concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege any element of a RICO 4 claim because Plaintiff was just bringing a landlord-tenant dispute. R&R at 3–4. The 5 Court agrees. 6 For a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) 7 through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 8 547 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). “Rule 9(b)’s requirement that ‘[i]n all averments of fraud or 9 mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity’ 10 applies to civil RICO fraud claims.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 11 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). 12 Plaintiff’s allegations fail because they are conclusory and lack specificity. Plaintiff 13 does not sufficiently allege the existence of an enterprise. In a conclusory fashion, she 14 merely alleges that Defendants “coordinated litigation abuse, fraudulent filings, and 15 property transfers.” Compl. at 3. Moreover, “cases which allege only one scheme, 16 perpetrated on one victim, are usually insufficient to establish a pattern.” Menjivar v. 17 Trophy Props. IV DE, LLC, No. C 06-03086 SI, 2006 WL 2884396, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18 10, 2006). As Plaintiff alleges she is the only victim of a single scheme, she cannot 19 demonstrate a pattern. Plaintiff also fails to establish that any of Defendants’ actions 20 implicated interstate commerce. Currier v. Whim Co., No. C 04-01366 SI, 2004 WL 21 1212058, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2004) (“[P]laintiff fails to allege that the involvement 22 of interstate commerce that is essential to a RICO claim.”). 23 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this claim. 24 C. Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) 25 Judge Westmore rejected Plaintiff’s claim for mail fraud as a matter of law. The 26 Court agrees. “[T]here is no private right of action for mail fraud.” Wilcox v. First 27 Interstate Bank, 815 F.2d 522, 533 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1987). D. Abuse of Process 1 Judge Westmore determined that Plaintiff failed to make out a claim for abuse of 2 process. The Court agrees. 3 Plaintiff’s claim stems from her allegation that “Defendants used legal 4 procedures—including unlawful detainer complaints, remand motions, and discovery 5 tactics—for improper purposes.” Compl. at 4. But statements in unlawful detainer actions 6 are privileged and “cannot form the basis for an abuse of process claim.” Rucker v. Wells 7 Fargo Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 12919236, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012), aff’d sub nom. 8 Rucker v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 605 F. App’x 670 (9th Cir. 2015). Additionally, all the 9 unlawful detainer cases Plaintiff removed were remanded due to a lack of subject matter 10 jurisdiction. See R&R at 5. And it was this Court that previously rebuked Plaintiff for her 11 bad faith and abusive conduct. See Chiang v. Afifi, No. 25-CV-02074-CRB, 2025 WL 12 1207540, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025). Lastly, Plaintiff does not explain what 13 discovery tactics took place and what made them improper. 14 Consequently, this claim fails. 15 E. Civil Rights Violation (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 16 Judge Westmore recommended dismissal of this claim because Plaintiff failed to 17 show Defendants were acting under the color of state law. R&R at 6. The Court agrees. 18 A plaintiff “suing a private individual under § 1983 must demonstrate that the 19 private individual acted under color of state law; plaintiffs do not enjoy [constitutional] 20 protections against private conduct abridging individual rights.” Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 21 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff does 22 not allege how Defendants, who are private individuals and entities, acted under color of 23 state law. She vaguely notes that private individuals can be liable if they conspire with 24 state officials, but provides no detail as to the instant case. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff also says 25 misuse of judicial process can give rise to Section 1983 liability but merely seeking 26 remedies from a court does not implicate state action. See Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 27 996 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Although the court assuredly performs a public purpose, a private 1 || individual seeking a remedy from a court is seeking gain for him or herself, a purely 2 || private act”). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a Section 1983 claim. 3 || II. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES the case 5 || without prejudice. While amendment to maintain diversity jurisdiction appears futile, 6 || Plaintiff may refile in state court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 31, 2026 i CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 1] 12

13 14

16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28