Crystal Property Management Inc. v. Maya Camilon

JS-6 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 CRYSTAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT case NUMBER: 10 || INC, CV 19-7611 PA (FFMx) Plaintiff v. 13 || MAYA CAMILON, DOES to 10, inclusive, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT Defendant(s). 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.” Syngenta Grop 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 23 ll removal, those statutes are strictly construed against…