FV-1, Inc. v. Vincent Sanchez, et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Case remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDBS 1700560. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mrgo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

FV-1, INC., IN TRUST FOR MORGAN
STANLEY MORTGAGE CAPITAL
HOLDINGS LLC,

14

CASE NUMBER:

EDCV 17-01177-SVW (DTBx)

Plaintiff

12
13

JS-6

v.

VINCENT SANCHEZ; CONNIE
SANCHEZ; AND DOES 1 TO 10,
INCLUSIVE,

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 San Bernardino
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