OPINION AND ORDER On September 29, 2023, plaintiff Lynn Michelle Allen, on behalf of the estate of her deceased son William Tyler Allen, filed a verified complaint in New York County Supreme Court against defendants Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC (“Fidelity”) and Interactive Brokers LLC (“Interactive”). The complaint brought five claims — negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duties, gross negligence, and wrongful death — all under state-law causes of action. Allen alleged that defendants’ conduct caused her son financial and emotional harm and ultimately led to his tragic death by suicide. On October 24, 2023, Fidelity removed the case to this Court. As a general rule, “any 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 or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Like many legal rules, however, this principle is not absolute. “A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of” diversity jurisdiction “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Id. §1441(b)(2). Because Fidelity’s removal runs afoul of this exception, the Court hereby remands this action to the New York County Supreme Court.1 As all parties agree, Interactive is a citizen of New York.2 As a result, Fidelity’s removal was proper only if the basis for federal jurisdiction is not “solely” diversity jurisdiction. Id. In other words, the Court may hear this case only if it possesses federal-question jurisdiction, meaning that Allen’s claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. §1331. “Most directly, and most often, federal jurisdiction attaches when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. 374, 383 (2016). As already stated, each of Allen’s asserted causes of action comes from state, not federal, law. “But even when a claim find its origins in state law, there is a special and small category of cases in which arising under jurisdiction still lies.” Id.3 “That is, federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). “where all four of these requirements are met,…jurisdiction is proper because there is a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum, which can be vindicated without disrupting Congress’s intended division of labor between state and federal courts.” Id. Allen’s claims do not fall into this “special and small category of cases,” Merrill Lynch, 578 U.S. at 383, for two independent reasons. First, they do not raise substantial questions of federal law. Second, opening the federal courthouse doors to Allen’s claims would fly in the face of “Congress’s intended division of labor between state and federal courts.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. To be sure, there are lurking federal issues in Allen’s claims that are “necessarily raised” and “actually disputed.” Id. As the face of Allen’s complaint makes clear, each claim rests on one or more alleged duties that defendants owed to their customers that were created by federal law. In particular, the complaint’s entire theory of liability is that defendants violated state tort law in various ways by breaching federal regulations promulgated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). See ECF No. 1-1 (“Complaint”), at
