Wolff
Deutshce Bank National Trust Company v. Wolff
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2
JS-6
3 4 5 6 7 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
? || DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, | casp NUMBER: 10 || et al., 11 CV 20-00299-DMG (GJSx) Plaintiff 12 Vv. 13 || MICHAEL WOLFF, et al.,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT
15 Defendant(s). 16 17 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. 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 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.…