U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Myron Hale
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
O 1
JS-6
2 3 4 5 6 7
8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California
10
11 U.S. Bank Trust N.A., etc., Case № 2:19-CV-010279-ODW (Ex)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
13 v. 14 M yron Hale, et al., STATE COURT Defendants. 15
16 17 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court 18 for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth 19 below.1 20 “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in 21 a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of 22 Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting 23 Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress 24 has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against 25 removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 26 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 27 1 After carefully considering the Notice of Removal, the Court deems the matter appropriate…