MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Edward Steven Ponce

1 2 3 4 JS-6 5 6 7 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 11 ED CV 19-2308-JGB (SPx) Plaintiff 12 V. 13 || EDWARD STEVEN PONCE, et al.,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

14 STATE COURT Defendant(s). 16 17 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the 18 || County of San Bernardino for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. 19 “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 Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co. 22 |v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, 23 || 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…