Vincent Trinh v. David Salas Alvarado

1 2 3

JS-6

5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

VINCENT TRINH, CASE NUMBER:

10 11 ED CV 20-02-JGB (SPx) Plaintiff 12 v. 13 || DAVID SALAS ALVARADO, 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 Riverside 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 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 564, 566…