Mary Prater v. Titus Fotso
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
Case 2:22-cv-01231-FMO-KS Document Filed 03/03/ Pagelof3 Page ID #:23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
° Mary Prater, CASE NUMBER: 10 2:22-cv-01231-FMO-KS Plaintiff Vv. 13 || Titus Fotso,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT Defendant(s). owen 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.” 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 |!removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of 24 || Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th…