Hermoyne Investments, Inc. v. Rachel London
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 2, 20192:19-cv-09944California1,151 words
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
1 “LERK, Us DIeERCT COURT 2 12/2/2019
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY: CW DEPUTY 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER:
10 || Hermoyne Investments, Inc., CV 19-9944 FMO (MRWx) Plaintiff Vv. 13 Rachel London ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT Defendant(s). 16 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.” 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…