Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Farid Khan

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

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

? Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC, CASE NUMBER: 10 11 CV 20-1544-DMG (KSx) Plaintiff 12 v. 13 || Farid Khan et al.,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

14 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 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…