Simpson
(PC) Jacks v. Simpson
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARRY LEE JACKS, No. 2:22-cv-0693 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
C/O SIMPSON, et al., Defendants. 16 This action was removed from state court. “[R]emoval jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed against removal.” See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question…