Balwin Hills Investors Ltd. v. Charles Finley, Jr.

1 JS-6 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

BALDWIN HILLS INVESTORS LTD.,

CASE NUMBER:

5 6 CV 24-652-MWF(KSx) Plaintiff(s), 7 v. 8 CHARLES EDWARD FINLEY, JR.,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

individually and doing business as My 9 STATE COURT Mailbox 10 Defendant(s). 11 12 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the 13 County of L o s A n g e l e s for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. 14 “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.’” 16 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…