Paklun Hui v. Jonathan Weiss
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, Case number 17RO2623 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (bp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CV 17-5871-JAK (GJSx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the
18 County of Los Angeles
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below.
“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in a state
20 court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’”
21 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co.
22 v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal,
23 those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of America
24 Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any civil
26 action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
27 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The
28 removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v.
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page 1 of 3
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?