Richard Hum v. Christopher Nichols et al
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17WCUD00850. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CV 18-0927-SVW (ASx)
Christopher Nichols, et. al.,
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 Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v.
22 Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress has acted to create a right of
23 removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of
24 Am. 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?