Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-3 Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2007-3 v. Joseph Matyasik
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2
JS-6
3 4 5 6 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
THORNBURG MORTGAGE
CASE NUMBER:
10 SECURITIES TRUST 2007-3 11 CASE NO. 8:20-cv-377JVS(KESx) Plaintiff 12 v. 13 MATYASIK
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 L o s A n g e l e s 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. 1992).…