(PS) Emerson v. Mitchell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KATHLEEN EMERSON; DANIEL No. 2:19-cv-1528-KJM-EFB PS

ENOS,

12 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v.

FREDERICK MITCHELL,

15 Defendant.

17 Defendant Frederick Mitchell filed a notice of removal of this action from the Superior Court of the State of California for Yolo County. ECF No. 1. For the reasons explained below, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the case must be remanded to state court. The court has a sua sponte obligation to ascertain its jurisdiction and, when appropriate, to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566…