Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH SILVA, No. 25-2165 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:24-cv-01870-MMA-AHG v. MEMORANDUM* CREDITNINJA LENDING, LLC; NINJASERVICING, LLC, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 30, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, OWENS, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Defendants-Appellants CreditNinja Lending, LLC and NinjaServicing, LLC (together, “CreditNinja”) appeal the district court’s order granting Plaintiff- Appellee Joseph Silva’s (“Silva”) motion to remand to state court. Silva filed a putative class action in California state court, alleging unfair * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. competition and false advertising under California law. Silva sought only restitution and injunctive relief. CreditNinja removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Silva moved to remand to state court. The district court granted the motion on two grounds: the district court lacked equitable jurisdiction over the restitution remedy, and Silva lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's remand for lack of equitable jurisdiction. Equitable jurisdiction is not subject matter jurisdiction. Ruiz v. Bradford Exch., Ltd., 153 F.4th 907, 916 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 2605 (Apr. 27, 2026). Because the district court remanded for a reason “other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” this appeal is not precluded by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Harmston v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273, 1277 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a removed case. Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947, 953 (9th Cir. 2024). 2. At the time of its ruling, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent opinion, Ruiz. 153 F.4th at 909. In Ruiz, we held that “district courts are empowered to remand a removed case to state court for lack of equitable jurisdiction, but only after the removing defendant is given the opportunity to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law issue.” Id. Accordingly, we vacate the district 2 25-2165 court’s order and remand so that the court may reconsider the motion in light of CreditNinja’s waiver, as recognized by Ruiz. Id. 3. Because we vacate the district court’s order remanding the entire action on the basis of equitable jurisdiction, we do not reach whether the district court erred in treating the lack of Article III standing for Silva’s request for injunctive relief as an additional basis for remand, nor whether the district court could invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to sever and remand Silva’s request for injunctive relief alone.1 VACATED AND REMANDED. 1 CreditNinja’s separate petition for permission to appeal the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) in No. 25-1928 is denied as moot. 3 25-2165