TTC ROC III Promenade, LLC v. Franklin Deloach et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to California Superior Court for the County of Riverside, Case number MVC 1604207, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See document for further details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (iv)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TTC ROC III PROMENADE, LLC,

CASE NUMBER:

10

EDCV17-00088-CAS (DTBx)

11

Plaintiff

12
13
14

v.

FRANKLIN DELOACH; JERMAINE
DELOACH; AND DOES 1 TO 10,

15

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

Defendant(s).

16
17

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

18 County of Riverside
19

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).
25

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.

CV-136 (3/16)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Page 1 of 3