1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARAH GIANNELLA, Case No. 2:24-cv-00304-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v.

14 BISHOY HANNA, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 RULING 19 On January 12, 2024, Defendant Bishoy Hanna (“Hanna”) filed a Notice of 20 Removal, arguing this court has jurisdiction over three separate actions, all of which 21 Hanna claims to be related. Dkt. 1 (“NOR”). These three actions are: (1) Sarah 22 Giannella v. Bishoy Hanna, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23 23SMRO00410 (the “First Action”); (2) Bishoy Hanna v. Josh Freeman Stinn, et al., 24 Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 24STCV00037 (the “Second Action”); 25 and (3) Bishoy Hanna v. Sarah Giannella, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case 26 No. 23STFL10014 (the “Third Action”). Id. 27 The court finds it lacks jurisdiction over any of the three actions. With respect 28 to the First Action, Hanna has failed to demonstrate a basis for federal jurisdiction. 1 The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego 2 Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006). Failure to do so 3 requires the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, 4 and ... the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. 5 Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (citation 6 omitted). Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 7 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 8 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court 10 must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 11 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

, 89 (2014). Here, Hanna provides no evidence or argument indicating that the 13 court has either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction over the First 14 Action.1 15 With respect to the Second and Third Actions, the removing party, Hanna, is 16 not a named Defendant. See NOR, Ex. 2.2 For this reason alone, remand to state 17 court is required. See

(a) (removal may be effectuated only by “the 18 defendant or the defendants”); Sharma v. HIS Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by 19 Deutsch Bank Nat. Tr. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2022) (“Because an 20 unnamed party removed this case, the district court should have remanded it instead of 21 retaining jurisdiction[.]”). 22

23 1 The First Action, as reflected in Exhibit 1 to the Notice of Removal, arises from 24 Plaintiff Sarah Giannella’s requests to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for a domestic violence restraining order, child custody and visitation order, and order to 25 prevent child abduction. See NOR, Ex. 1. Hanna is named as a Respondent in this 26 action.

27 2 Hanna only provides the Complaint in the Second Action and does not submit any documents or pleadings related to the Third Action. Based on the Notice of Removal, 28 however, Hanna is the plaintiff in the Third Action. l For the reasons set forth above, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. The 2 | court, therefore, REMANDS the First Action (Case No. 23SMRO00410), the Second 3 | Action (Case No. 24STCV00037), and the Third Action (Case No. 23STFL10014) to 4 || the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The clerk of the court shall close the action 5 | administratively. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | Dated: January 19, 2024 10 FERNANDO E. AENLLE-ROCHA 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28