CP6 Eastown LLC v. Justin Weatherford, et al.

1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CP6 EASTOWN LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-08894-CV (MBKx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. 14 JUSTIN WEATHERFORD, et al. 15 Defendants 16 17 On September 18, 2025, Defendant Justin Weatherford (“Defendant”), having been 18 sued by Plaintiff CP6 Eastown LLC (“Plaintiff”) in what appears to be a routine unlawful 19 detainer action in California state court, removed that action on federal question grounds 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Doc. # 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at 2–3. 21 Defendant subsequently filed a motion and a separate ex parte application to remand the 22 case back to state court. See Doc. ## 7 (“Motion”), 8 (Ex Parte Application). 23 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 24 authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 25 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary 26 appears affirmatively from the record. See…