Ohlsson
Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Ohlsson
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND Case No. 21-cv-03768-JSC 2016, LLC, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 11
DIANE OHLSSON,
11 Defendant.
12 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 4.) Defendant, who is proceeding without representation by a lawyer, also seeks remand. (Dkt. No. 11.) She avers that she previously filed notice of removal “according to the best of my knowledge and informed belief at that time,” but “due to new information and better understanding of [] available defenses” requests remand to state court. (Id. at 3.) The party seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper, and the Court resolves all uncertainty in favor of remand. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant has declined to meet her burden, and her position appears to have changed in good faith. Accordingly, the Court …