NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COOPER TRUST DTD 10-05-2000, by its No. 17-55939 Trustee Letitia M. Cooper, an individual, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04379-PA-AGR Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

JOHN L. PARMIGIANI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant John L. Parmigiani appeals from the district court’s order

remanding plaintiff’s action to California state court.1 We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 The appellee has not submitted an answering brief. removed case. Lively v. Wild Oats Mkt., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2006).

We reverse and remand.

The district court remanded the action to state court sua sponte on the basis

of non-jurisdictional procedural defects in the removal process. However, given

that diversity jurisdiction existed over the action at the time of the district court’s

remand order, the district court had no authority to remand the case to state court

on procedural grounds where plaintiff did not move for remand. See Kuxhausen v.

BMW Fin. Servs., NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017) (failure to attach

“a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served” to the notice of removal is a

curable procedural defect); Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead

Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court does not have

authority to remand a case sua sponte based on procedural defects).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 17-55939