OPINION & ORDER The County of Orange (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in Supreme Court, Orange County on May 12, 2023, against the Crossroads Hotel, Newburgh EOM, LLC, Ramada by Windham, and Ratan Newburgh, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants removed this action to this Court on May 21, 2023. (See ECF No. 1.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand (the “Motion”) the instant action to New York State Supreme Court. (ECF No. 26.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The following facts are drawn from the Amended Removal Petition, (ECF No. 20, (“ARP”)), which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of the motion. See Torres v. St. Vincent DePaul Residence, No. 22-CV-7012, 2023 WL 2754305, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2023); Skornick v. Principal Fin. Grp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 176, 178 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Because the validity of a removal petition involves a jurisdictional inquiry, the Court also draws additional facts where necessary from exhibits attached to the ARP, such as Plaintiff’s underlying state court complaint (ECF No. 20-1). See Romano v. Kazacos, 609 F.3d 512, 520 (2d Cir. 2010); Torres, 2023 WL 2754305, at *1 n.1; Winters v. Alza Corp., 690 F. Supp. 2d 350, 353 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Plaintiff filed the underlying action in Supreme Court, Orange County on May 12, 2023, against the Defendants. (ARP 11.) The underlying action was prompted by the publicly announced plan of Mayor Eric Adams to alleviate overcrowding in New York City’s homeless shelter system by sending recently arrived asylum seekers to temporarily reside in public accommodations located in nearby counties through participating hotels such as Defendants. (Id. 8.) Defendants were to offer certain rooms in their hotels to provide temporary public accommodations to a small number of asylum seekers. (Id. 9.) The underlying state court complaint alleges that [o]n or about May 10, 2023, [Orange] County officials were expressly assured by City of New York officials it would be holding off on bussing any homeless [persons] to Orange County for an indeterminate period of time. Despite these assurances, on May 11, 2023, busses showed up at The [Defendant] Crossroads [Hotel], with no notice to the County or its social services infrastructure, and dropped off numerous homeless men to be housed in the City-created, and illegal, temporary homeless shelter. (ECF No. 1-1
18-19.) On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction against the Defendants, temporarily enjoining Defendants from “[t]ransporting any further migrants and/or asylum seekers to Orange County[].” The injunction allowed the “186 persons already occupying the subject properties” to “remain in occupancy until further Order of this Court.” (ARP 17; ECF No. 20-3.) II. Procedural History Plaintiff filed the underlying action in Supreme Court, Orange County on May 12, 2023. (See ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants removed the action to this Court on May 21, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on August 18, 2023, as well as a memorandum of law (ECF No. 27) and a reply (ECF No. 31) in support thereof. Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the Motion (“Defs.’ Opp.”, ECF No. 29). LEGAL STANDARDS 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) requires remand “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” LeChase Constr. Servs., LLC v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 160, 166 (2d Cir. 2023) (brackets omitted). On a motion to remand, it is the nonmoving party (i.e., the party that removed the case) which “bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal.” Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 704 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Unless that burden is met, the case must be remanded back to state court. At this stage therefore, the party seeking remand is presumed to be entitled to it unless the removing party can demonstrate otherwise.” Town of Poughkeepsie v. S. Rd. Hosp. LLC, No. 23-CV-04214 (PMH), 2024 WL 1156083, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024) (quoting Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). In determining the propriety of a removal to federal court, courts look to whether the underlying claims “arise under federal law.” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F. Supp. 2d 340, 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “It is well-settled that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, even the defense of preemption, and even if the defense is anticipated in the complaint and constitutes the only question at issue on removal.” Venturino v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 724 F. Supp. 2d 429, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Removal jurisdiction, as a general matter, must be “strictly construed,” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002), and any doubts should be resolved against removability “out of respect for the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the rights of the states,” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 2007). DISCUSSION Here, Defendants assert two grounds for removal: (1) under 28 U.S.C. §1443(1) as a civil rights case and (2) under 28 U.S.C. §1441 as a case over which this Court has original jurisdiction because it arises under federal law. (ARP
