MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Allison Tepley (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in New York state court against Gro Intelligence, Inc. (“Gro”) and Sara Menker (together, “Defendants”), alleging, in connection with Plaintiff’s prior employment as a marketing executive at Gro, state-law claims for discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. See generally Dkt. 1-3 (“Compl.”). Defendants removed this action to federal court. See Dkt. 1 (“Rem. Not.”). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand to New York state court. See Dkt. 18 (“Br.”). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff previously filed a similar case against Defendants in this District on December 30, 2023 (the “Federal Action”). There, Plaintiff alleged the same state-law claims asserted here as well as federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Equal Pay Act. See Complaint
58-110, Tepley v. Gro Intel. Inc., No. 23-cv-11314 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2023), Dkt. 1. On April 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action alleging only state-law claims in New York Supreme Court. Compl. at 18. That same day, she informed the Federal Action court that she had “elected to re-file” her case in state court. Letter, Tepley, No. 23-cv-11314 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2024), Dkt. 32.1 She voluntarily dismissed the Federal Action without prejudice on April 19, 2024. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Tepley, No. 23-cv-11314 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2024), Dkt. 34. On April 22, 2024, before either of them had been served, Defendants removed this action to this Court based on diversity-jurisdiction grounds. Rem. Not. On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. Dkt. 18 (“Br.”). The motion is briefed. Dkts. 22 (“Opp.”), 31 (“Reply”). DISCUSSION Generally, any civil suit initiated in state court over which a district court would have had original jurisdiction “may be removed by…the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district…embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). “The defendant, as the party seeking removal and asserting federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of demonstrating that the district court has original jurisdiction.” McCulloch Orthopaedic Surgical Servs., PLLC v. Aetna Inc., 857 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2017); see Backer v. Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., 338 F. Supp. 3d 222, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“The party seeking to preserve removal has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists.” (citation omitted)). Section 1441 permits removal based on federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. See Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 52 (2d Cir. 1998). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2014). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an individual’s citizenship “is determined by his domicile,” which is “the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., 935 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “[T]he relevant domicile is the parties’ domicile at the time the complaint was filed.” Id. Corporations like Gro are citizens of both their state of incorporation and their principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010) (corporation’s “principal place of business” is its “nerve center,” which “should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters”). “[W]here, as here, the only basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332, the forum defendant rule applies.” Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 704 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Under that rule, a suit that is “otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity of citizenship] 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.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2). In addressing Plaintiff’s motion to remand, the Court considers whether this case is removable due to diversity of citizenship between the parties and, if so, whether the forumdefendant rule blocks removal of the case. I. Diversity of the Parties Here, the sole issue under 28 U.S.C. §1332 is Plaintiff’s citizenship. The parties agree that Defendants are citizens of New York and Delaware. See Compl.
