Shaeen Mallick et al v. Antonio Henry Mercado et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson remanding case to SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Case number UDFS1705434. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (cr)

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

8
9

Shaeen Mallick

JS-6

CASE NUMBER:

10

EDCV 17-01878 SVW (SHKx)

11

Plaintiff

12
13

v.

Antonio Henry Mercado

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

14
15

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 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).
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 (12/14)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Page 1 of 3