Rudolph Weddington v. Thomas Weddington
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
Case 5:22-cv-00507-FLA-RAO Document § Filed 04/05/ Pagel1of3 Page ID #:
JS-
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
* || RUDOLPH WEDDINGTON, 5:22-cv-00507-FLA (RAO) Plaintiff(s), v. THOMAS WEDDINGTON,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT Defendant(s). jw ll The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the 13 County of Riverside 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 15 || 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. 17 Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress has acted to create a right of 18 || removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of 19 Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012);…