MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff’s motion to remand and the plaintiff’s motions to compel and for sanctions. (ECF Nos. 8, 12, 19, 20.) For the reasons explained below, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the plaintiff’s motions are denied.1 BACKGROUND On November 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed this action in New York Civil Court, Kings County. (ECF No. 1-1.) Although the underlying complaint named “CEO Mark Suzman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” the plaintiff served the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and there is no indication that he also served Mr. Suzman. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 8-12.) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation removed the action to this Court on January 12, 2022 on the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). (ECF No. 1.) The plaintiff’s pleadings include a complaint, a notice of summons and a series of exhibits. (ECF No. 1-1.) The plaintiff asserts five claims against the defendant: (1) “dishonored checks;” (2) “personal injuries through discrimination and profiling;” (3) “failure to provide proper services…as a public official of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization;” (4) “monies due in grand larceny by deception;” and (5) “loss time for work…as a start-up architect entrepreneur of which these acts by the [defendant] has left me in a very vulnerable state with a professional hourly rate in judgment with serious probable cause in intent of blackmail and blacklisting.” (Id. at 4.) The plaintiff seeks $96,600.00 in damages, and maintains that each claim “is supported with serious evidence and criminal conviction.” (Id.) The notice of summons also refers to a “criminal conspiracy,” and cites violations of various statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 241, 242 and 10 U.S.C. §921. (Id.)2 The plaintiff’s exhibits include a series of emails between the plaintiff and individuals using the following email accounts: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5, 16, 21, 34-37.) Also included within the plaintiff’s submissions are text and Twitter communications between the plaintiff and someone claiming to be Mark Suzman, as well as the plaintiff’s American Express payment history in November and December 2020 and February and March 2021. (Id. at 6-14, 17-20, 22-32.) The origins of the plaintiff’s complaints are not clear, but according to the correspondence he attached to his complaint, at some point, individuals claiming to be Mark Suzman, Steven Rice and the “Royal Bank of Scotland” asked the plaintiff to buy $2,000 in gift cards, and also to make various payments, including a $600 “membership fee” for the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust,” a $3,000 “bank transfer fee” and a $2,300 deposit. (Id. at 9, 27, 35-36; ECF No. 12-2 at 3.) In a November 24, 2020 email, the plaintiff characterized the requests as “bizarre,” and said that he “was not really to[o] happy with this notion of buying gift cards to get you your money back.” (Id. at 16.) On May 1, 2021, the plaintiff “warn[ed]” the person using the [email protected] email address that a “ summons…will be on its way to you regarding aggravated assault and possible charge on grand larceny by false deception.” (Id. at 5.) After the defendant removed the action, it moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on January 19, 2022. (ECF No. 8.) The defendant attached exhibits to its motion, including two attorney declarations and filings from the plaintiff’s previous cases in state and federal court. (See ECF Nos. 8-2-14.) While I decline to consider the factual assertions in the defendant’s attorney declarations,3 I take judicial notice of the case filings “not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.” Global Network Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 154-56 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Int’l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass’n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1998)). On February 7, 2022, the plaintiff moved to remand this action to state court. (ECF Nos. 12, 17.) In addition to arguing that removal was improper, the plaintiff reiterated his five claims against the defendant, and alleged new detail about the “scam[s]” that various people perpetrated against him. (ECF No. 12-2 at 2-4.) For example, he alleged that he “ received a very strange morning phone call from someone who claimed to be a government agent inquiring about funds that had not cleared on [his] accounts,” and that Mr. Suzman purchased two phones from the plaintiff’s Verizon account. (Id. at 3.) The plaintiff also attached additional communications and bank records, many of which appear identical to the exhibits attached to his complaint. (Id. at 9-47.)4 In light of the special solicitude afforded pro se litigants, it is appropriate for the Court to consider these documents in evaluating the defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Cuffee v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-8916, 2017 WL 1232737, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2017) (“[T]he mandate that a pro se plaintiff’s complaint be construed liberally makes it appropriate for the court to consider the factual allegations in a pro se plaintiff’s opposition materials to supplement the allegations in the complaint.”); Sommersett v. City of New York, No. 09-CV-5916, 2011 WL 2565301, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011) (“[W]here a pro se plaintiff has submitted other papers to the Court, such as legal memoranda, the Court may consider statements in such papers to supplement or clarify the plaintiff’s pleaded allegations.”). LEGAL STANDARD To avoid dismissal, a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint that includes only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A complaint fails to state a claim “if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted). Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I construe his complaint liberally, and evaluate it by “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). The plaintiff’s claims must be “read to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). DISCUSSION I. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand I first address the plaintiff’s motion for remand. A federal court can remand an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time before the entry of judgment. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); see also JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caires, 768 F. App’x 73, 74 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order). Federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000″ and the suit is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. §1332. A defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction “has the burden of proving that it appears to a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount of $75,000.” Palmer v. Schindler Elevator Corp., No. 17-CV-3619, 2017 WL 3037411, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017) (quoting Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(2)(B) (removal is proper “if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a)”). To determine whether the defendant has met that burden, the court looks first to the complaint and then to the petition for removal. Mehlenbacher, 216 F.3d at 296. The defendant has met its burden of establishing that removal was proper. First, because the plaintiff lives in New York and the defendant is a Washington-based entity with a principal place of business in Seattle, Washington, diversity of citizenship is satisfied under 28 U.S.C. §1332. (See ECF No. 1
