UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KATRINA QUEEN et al. , : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 10-2017 (RMU) : v. : Re Document No.: 36 : JANET SCHMIDT et al. , : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION This case stems from a dispute over the admini stration of a trust. The plaintiffs, a group of former trustees to the estate of Elberta D ouglass, allege that defendant Janet Schmidt acted improperly by amending the trust so that defe ndants Mark Cera and Bonnie Miller would be appointed as trustees in the plaintiffs’ stead. See generally Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 9-16. The plaintiffs originally brought suit against defendants Sc hmidt, Cera and Miller in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the defendants removed to this court. See generally Notice of Removal. This matter is currently before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. See generally Pls.’ Mot. to Remand. Courts must strictly construe removal statutes. Williams v. Howard Univ. , 984 F. Supp. 27, 29 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets , 313 U.S. 100, 107-09 (1941)). The court must resolve any ambiguities concerning the propriety of removal in favor of remand. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999); Nwachukwu v. Karl , 223 F. Supp. 2d 60, 66 (D.D.C. 2002). If a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction becomes apparent at any point prior to fi nal judgment, the removal court must remand the case to the state court from which the defendants originally removed the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) . In the event that the federal court lacks subject matte r jurisdiction, remand is mandatory. Republic of Venez. v.Philip Morris, Inc. , 287 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M St. LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177-78 (D.D.C. 2003). When th e plaintiff files a motion to remand, the defendant bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Live Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. , 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921); Nat’l Org. for Women v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. , 612 F. Supp. 100, 101 (D.D.C. 1985). The plaintiffs argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because this matter may interfere with the administration of a decedent’s estate. See Pls.’ Mot. to Remand at 2-3. Accordingly, the plaintiffs argue that this case falls under the “probate exception” to diversity jurisdiction. See id. In response, the defendants do not s ubstantially challenge the plaintiffs’ argument, choosing instead to assert in a conclu sory manner that this c ourt retains its subject matter jurisdiction notwithsta nding the probate exception. See Def. Schmidt’s Notice of Challenge to Certificate of Service (“Def. Schmidt’s Opp’n”) at 6-7. Under the probate exception to federal di versity jurisdiction, a federal court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case that might interfere with the administration of a decedent’s estate – even if the prerequisites to diversity jurisdiction are otherwise met. See Markham v. Allen , 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946)

. The trust in this matter governs the disposition of the property of Elberta Douglass, who died in Ja nuary 2010. Pls.’ Mot. to Remand at 3; Compl. ¶ 16. The plaintiffs argue that because the trus t governs the disposition of a decedent’s estate, this case falls within the probate exception and this court lacks s ubject matter jurisdiction. Pls.’ Mot. to Remand at 3. None of the defendants have provided this court with any argument, evidence or case law which might persuade th e court to reach a contrary conclusion. See generally Def. Schmidt’s Opp’n.Thus, at a minimum, factual ambiguities exis t between the parties regarding whether this court has subject matter juri sdiction. These ambiguities weigh in favor of remand. Nwachukwu , 223 F. Supp. 2d at 66. Because the plaintiffs have shown th at the defendants have not met their burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists, Kokkonen , 511 U.S. at 377, the court is obligated to remand the case to the court in which the defendants were originally sued, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (instructing district courts to remand if it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 14th day of September, 2011.
RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge