MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs, Lone Star Americas Acquisitions, Inc. (“Lone Star”) and LSRMF3 AQ Holdings Trust (the “Trust”), filed this action against the defendant, SUSA Financial, Inc. d/b/a FirstFunding, Inc. (“FirstFunding”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. On October 17, 2022, the defendant removed this case to the District Court for the Southern District of New York on the basis of diversity of citizenship. On November 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed this motion to remand the case to state court, asserting that there is incomplete diversity of citizenship because plaintiff Lone Star’s principal place of business is in Texas, where the defendant is incorporated. The defendant opposed the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, arguing that Lone Star’s principal place of business is actually in New York and not in Texas. The defendant separately filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the alternative, the defendant requests jurisdictional discovery to clear up any “doubt…as to Lone Star’s principal place of business.” Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 23, at 6. For the reasons explained below, the defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery is denied, the plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice as moot. I. The plaintiffs commenced this action in state court on September 13, 2022, asserting various state-law claims against the defendant in connection with an alleged agreement for the sale of certain mortgage loans. See Def.’s Notice of Removal, Ex. A (Compl.), ECF No. 1-1. The defendant removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), which provides that “[a]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[] may be removed by the defendant” to federal court.1 28 U.S.C. §1441(a); Def.’s Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, 7. The defendant asserted federal subject-matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Def.’s Notice of Removal 15. The defendant is incorporated in Texas and has its principal place of business in California. Id. 12. The plaintiffs challenge removal on the ground that complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. Pls.’ Mem. of Law, ECF No 13 (“Pls.’ Mem.”), at 5-10. The plaintiffs contend that Lone Star’s principal place of business is in Texas, the same state in which the defendant is incorporated, thereby destroying complete diversity. Id. at 6. In response, the defendant argues that Lone Star is actually headquartered in New York, New York. Def.’s Opp’n at 4-5. II. Removal from state court is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1441, which provides, as relevant here, that the only “civil action[s]” subject to removal are those over “ which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). “[A] district court, when determining whether it has original jurisdiction over a civil action, should evaluate whether that action could have been brought originally in federal court…either because it raises claims arising under federal law or because it falls within the court’s diversity jurisdiction.” Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). Diversity jurisdiction, which is the type of subject-matter jurisdiction at issue in this case, requires complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 (2005). On a motion to remand, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal.” Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Worldcom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 100 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Grimo v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Vt., 34 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir. 1994)). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1); see Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). In this case, the only dispute with respect to the existence of complete diversity is whether Lone Star has its principal place of business in Texas (where the defendant is incorporated) or in New York. Whether a corporation has offices or does business in any given state is not controlling for this analysis. See Vays v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 263, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Rather, according to the “nerve center” test, as adopted by the Supreme Court in Hertz Corp., a corporation’s principal place of business “refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” 559 U.S. at 80. All of the evidence presented on this motion points in the same direction, showing that Lone Star has its “nerve center” in Texas. Both members of Lone Star’s Board of Directors work in Texas, where they execute high level corporate decisions, such as appointing corporate officers, adopting corporate bylaws, and approving mergers. See Smith Decl., ECF No. 12,
