Lu v. Castillo Lu v. Castillo (C.D. Cal., 2014)

Copy Citation

JESSY LU, Plaintiff v. ISABEL CASTILLO Defendant(s).

CASE NUMBER: CV 14-9243

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 12, 2014

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

        The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles 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 Protection, Inc. v. Henson 537 U.S. 28 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander 246 U.S. 276 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id. ; Nevada v. Bank of America 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 2

Dow Chemical Co. 443 F. 3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus 980 F.2d at 566-67. "Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove an action pursuant to that provision, the removing defendant must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts. " Syngenta Crop Protection 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded, as "subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction. " Kelton Arms Condo, Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co. 346 F. 3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. " 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It is "elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court. " Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co. 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988).

        From a review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records provided, it is evident that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case, for the following reasons.

        v No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified:

Page 3

        v Diversity jurisdiction is lacking:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California listed above, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

        Date: 12. 12. 14

        /s/_________        United States District Judge