ORDER On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff Reindeer Consulting Group, LLC filed this lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County (the “State Court”), against Defendant Liberty Bell Home Care Services, Inc. (Summons & Compl., ECF No. 3.) On September 27, 2023, Defendant removed the case to this federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, at 5.) Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case. (Decl. of Jeffrey Zachter in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 12 (hereinafter “Mot. to Remand”).) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to remand. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As noted, Plaintiff commenced this action on August 25, 2023, in New York State court, and on September 27, 2023, Defendant removed the case to federal court. (Summons & Compl., ECF No. 3; Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. (Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 12.) In support, Plaintiff alleges that removal was improper both because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and because the “State Court of New York is the sole venue pursuant to the Consulting Agreement.” (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 12-3, at 4 (hereinafter “Mem. in Supp.”).) Plaintiff’s core argument is that the language in the Consulting Agreement (the “Agreement”) “places jurisdiction solely in the four counties in the State of New York.” (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant opposes remand, arguing that the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction and that the forum selection clause unambiguously “provided for an acceptable forum in any court located in the Counties of New York, Nassau, Kings, or Queens.” (Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 17, at ECF p. 5 (hereinafter “Mem. in Opp’n”) (quotation marks omitted).) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to remand. DISCUSSION I. Jurisdiction The prerequisites for diversity jurisdiction are well established. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. To meet the diversity of citizenship requirement, there must be “complete” diversity; “[d]iversity is not complete if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Universal Builders Supply, 409 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).1 To meet the amount in controversy requirement, the matter in controversy must “exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. §1332. Defendant has properly invoked diversity jurisdiction in this case. First, there is complete diversity: the members of Plaintiff LLC all reside in New York or New Jersey, and Defendant Corporation was incorporated in Pennsylvania, where its principal place of business is located. (Pl.’s Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, ECF No. 21; Decl. of L. Anthony DiJiacomo, III for a Rule 7.1 Suppl. Disclosure Statement, ECF No. 19, at
