Deutsche Bank v. Rose Sickle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NUMBER:

Deutsche Bank, CV 19-8963 PA (MRWx) Plaintiff v.

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

Eddie Gordon, STATE COURT 15 Defendant(s). 16 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the 18 County of L o s A n g e l e s 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.’” 21 Syngenta Crop 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 removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of 24 Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Unless otherwise expressly…