Citibank, N.A. v. Kathleen Eisenberg

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

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 CV 20-2251-ODW (PLAx) Plaintiff Vv. 13 || KATHLEEN EISENBERG,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

STATE COURT Defendant(s). 16 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the |County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. “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. 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,…