*1 Case 8:20-cv-01098-JLS-KES Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:23
JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The Anthony James Nocella and Maria CASE NUMBER: Elena Nocella Family Trust, 8:20-cv-01098-JLS-KES Plaintiff v. Kapil Sud, et al., ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT Defendant(s). The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the Orange County of 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 court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Page 1 of 3 CV-136 (3/16) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT