Ruter
Ruter v. Brosious
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ARLENE RUTER, CASE NO. 1:21-CV-0777 AWI SAB
Plaintiff
ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING
v. MATTER TO THE TUOLUMNE
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
TROY BROSIOUS and CHERYL PIZL,
Defendants
13 14 Defendants removed this case from the Superior Court of Tuolumne County on May 13, 2021. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 1. Defendants assert that the basis for removal is the presence of a federal question. See id. Specifically, Defendants contend that the complaint implicates the CARES Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9058. See id. A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1441) is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Provincial Gov’t…