In Re: Amendment and Complete Restatement of the Arnold Rosenblatt Revocable Living Trust Established February 22, 2006

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (iv)

1

JS-6

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

In Re: Amendment and Complete
Restatement of the Arnold Rosenblatt
Revocable Living Trust Estab. 02/22/2006,

CV 24-9890-MWF(BFMx)

Plaintiff(s),

7
8

CASE NUMBER:

v.

Melya Kaplan Tsakirides,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

9
10

Defendant(s).

11
12

The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the

13 County of Los Angeles
14

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

15 court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’”
16 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v.
17 Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress has acted to create a right of
18 removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of
19 Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
20

Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any civil

21 action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
22 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The
23 removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v.
24 Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. “Under the plain
25 terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the
26 removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal
27 courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded,
28 as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . the district court must remand if it

CV-136 (03/22)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Page 1 of 3