Alvarez

background reports by way of their inadequate disclosures, . . . Plaintiff and class members have 10 been injured, including but not limited to, having their privacy and statutory rights invaded in 11 violation of the FCRA.” SAC ¶¶ 46, 56. Second, that Defendants failed to give proper “summary 12 of rights” as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681d(a)(1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(c). Id. ¶¶59–70. 13 Plaintiff incorporates the same allegations of injury for this second cause of action. See SAC ¶ 59. 14 Finally, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and restitutionary relief for the FCRA claims. SAC ¶ 180. 15 B. Procedural History 16 Defendants removed the action to federal court, invoking federal question jurisdiction over 17 the FCRA claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the other state-law claims. See Dkt. 1. 18 Plaintiff moves to remand, arguing that because he lacks Article III standing for his FCRA claim, 19 removal was improper as this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Pl. Motion to Remand 20 (“Pl. Mot.”); Dkt. 35. 21

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

22 Removal of a civil action from state to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 23 has subject matter jurisdiction over…