1 JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 PHILIP ADDINGTON, Case No. 2:26-cv-01045-FLA (PVCx)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
13 v.
14
RICHARD SCUDDER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiffs Philip Addington (“Addington”) and Xavier Nailing filed this action
19 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 16, 2024. Dkt. 1 at 11–18. On
20 February 2, 2026, Addington removed the action to this court, alleging federal
21 question jurisdiction. Id. at 1. Prior to the removal of the action, the Los Angeles
22 County Superior Court had scheduled a hearing on Defendants Richard Scudder and
23 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to declare Addington a vexatious litigant. Id. at 2.
24 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power
25 authorized by [the] Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial
26 decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
27 (citations omitted); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are presumed to lack
28 jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.
| | DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). Additionally, federal
2 | courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the
3 || merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).
4 || This duty exists “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v.
5 | Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
6 A party not named as a defendant in the operative complaint is not authorized to
7 || remove an action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Sharma v. HST Asset Loan Obligation Tr.
8 | 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 23 F.4th 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2022)
9 | (“Because no actual defendant removed this case, the district court should have
10 | remanded it to state court.””). As Addington, the plaintiff, is the party who removed
11 | this action, the court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS as
12 | follows:
13 1. The action is REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
14 Case No. 24STCV17601.
15 2. All dates and deadlines in the action are VACATED.
16 3. The Clerk of the Court shall close the action administratively.
17
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20 | Dated: February 24, 2026 ae) _
71 FERNANDO L. AENI LE-ROCHA
22 United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.