Mark S. Duvernay v. Rochun Bailey
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER:
10 ll Plaintiff v.
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 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 Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of America 24 || Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any…