1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 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 10 DIANE OHLSSON, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand.1 (Dkt. No. 4.)2 Defendant, who is 14 proceeding without representation by a lawyer, also seeks remand. (Dkt. No. 11.) She avers that 15 she previously filed notice of removal “according to the best of my knowledge and informed belief 16 at that time,” but “due to new information and better understanding of [] available defenses” 17 requests remand to state court. (Id. at 3.) 18 The party seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper, and the Court 19 resolves all uncertainty in favor of remand. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,

, 1042 20 (9th Cir. 2009); Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Defendant has declined to 21 meet her burden, and her position appears to have changed in good faith. Accordingly, the Court 22 GRANTS the motion to remand and VACATES the hearing set for July 8, 2021. This action is 23 remanded to the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. 24 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 4, 11. 25 // 26 1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 5, 9.) 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: July 1, 2021 3 4 re JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15

16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28