Afifi v. Construction
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-06972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sabrina Afifi v. AAPT Construction, Judge Westmore granted fee-free filing but recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Sabrina Afifi, AAPT Construction, and Stanley Chiang; the recommendation concerns whether the case may proceed in federal court.
What happened
In Sabrina Afifi v. AAPT Construction, Sabrina Afifi sued AAPT Construction and Stanley Chiang over alleged misrepresentations involving entry into her residence and later accusations against her. She brought state-law claims and said federal jurisdiction existed because the parties were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found that the complaint did not provide facts showing that the defendants were citizens of states different from Afifi. The complaint and proposed summons instead indicated that the defendants were in California, and a state filing indicated that AAPT Construction was incorporated and operated in California and that Chiang used the same California address. The court also found that Afifi had not plausibly supported her claimed damages exceeding $75,000.
Judge Kandis Westmore granted Afifi permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, reassigned the case to a district judge, and recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion says the parties could object to the recommendation within 14 days; it does not state the district judge’s final decision.
The detailed version
- Afifi v. Construction · No. 3:25-cv-06972
- Kandis Westmore
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Sabrina Afifi filed a civil action against AAPT Construction and Stanley Chiang, along with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that Afifi brought only state-law claims. She alleged that Chiang, acting for AAPT Construction, entered her Oakland, California residence under false pretenses by saying he would assess and repair electrical deficiencies, and later falsely accused her of intimidating and violent conduct. She claimed more than $75,000 in damages for emotional distress, harm to her reputation, and interference with habitability and quiet enjoyment.
Screening and Jurisdiction
Under the statute allowing a person to proceed without paying filing fees, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it in specified circumstances, including when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Afifi relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires more than $75,000 in dispute and citizenship by the opposing parties in different states.
The court found that Afifi had not alleged facts showing different-state citizenship. Although she alleged that she was a California citizen and asserted, on information and belief, that the defendants were outside California or otherwise satisfied diversity requirements, the complaint did not provide supporting facts. The proposed summons listed both defendants in San Francisco, California. The court also took notice of AAPT Construction’s California Secretary of State filing, which stated that the company was incorporated in California and operated at the same San Francisco address. The filing stated that Chiang was AAPT Construction’s sole director, chief executive officer, secretary, chief financial officer, and agent for service of process, and that he was located at that same address.
The court additionally expressed skepticism that Afifi had met the more-than-$75,000 requirement because she alleged no facts supporting her damages calculation. It concluded that the complaint was insufficient under the filing-fee statute and that amending the allegations about diversity jurisdiction appeared futile.
Disposition
Judge Kandis Westmore granted Afifi’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation was not stated as a final dismissal by the district judge. The opinion states that any party could file objections with the district judge within 14 days after being served, and that failing to object within that period might waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.