# Youssef v. Rose

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10372109

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** May 17, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10372109

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Gary Youssef, Case No. 3:23-cv-462

Plaintiff

v.
ORDER OF REMAND
Andrea Rose,

Defendant

Gary Youssef, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Removal in this action on March 8, 2023, seeking
to remove “Superior Court of California San Diego Child Custody Case Number D558840” to this
Court. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.)
I am remanding the action.
Under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by defendant . . . to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law, or that involve
parties of diverse citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§1331
and 1332. If at any time it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is
required to remand the case to state court. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); Anusbigian v. Trugreen/Chemlawn, Inc.,
72 F.3d 1253, 1254 (6th Cir.1996). The party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that
the district court has original jurisdiction, and the removal statute “‘should be strictly construed and all
doubts resolved in favor of remand.’” Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864–65 (3d Cir. 1996)).
No basis for federal subject matter appears on the face of the Notice of Removal.
Removal to this Court is improper because federal courts have no jurisdiction over state child
custody matters. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992); Hughes v. Hamann, 23 F. App'x 337,
338 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue child custody decrees”) (citation omitted).
Further, this Court is not the “district court of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place where” the action sought to be removed is pending. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to the California Superior Court for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10372109. Public record. Not legal advice.