MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Loans on Fine Art LLC (“Plaintiff” or “LoFA”) filed suit on July 23, 2023, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, against defendant Ian S. Peck (“Peck”) and defendant Stubbs Holdings LLC (“Stubbs”; together with Peck, “Defendants”), alleging four counts of fraudulent conveyance and seeking declaratory relief. Amended Verified Complaint (“Compl.”), annexed to Notice of Removal, ECF 1. On September 29, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal and removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal (“Original Notice”), ECF 1. On October 4, 2023, Defendants amended their Notice of Removal to assert federal question jurisdiction as well. Amended Notice of Removal (“Amended Notice”), ECF 6. On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff moved to remand the action, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and further seeking attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) as well as Rule 11 sanctions. Motion to Remand (“Mot.”), ECF 19. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. BACKGROUND The circumstances underlying this action concern an art-financing dispute between LoFA, Peck, and Peck-affiliated entities. Mot. at 1. As of April 5, 2023, a $7-million arbitral award related to the dispute was awarded by a Judicial Arbitration and Mediations Services (“JAMS”) arbitrator against Peck and his companies — pending confirmation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mot. at 1; see Loans on Fine Art LLC v. Ian S. Peck, et al., 23-CV-4143 (JHR) (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2023). However, in Plaintiff’s action currently before this Court, Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief for alleged fraudulent conveyances under New York law. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stubbs is Defendant’s Peck’s alter ego — thus asserting that real property was fraudulently transferred from Peck to Stubbs. See generally Compl. However, the question before this Court is not with regard to the merits of Plaintiff’s case, but whether the proper forum for this matter is state or federal court. 1. Procedural History On July 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Amended Verified Complaint in New York state court and on August 24, 2023, served it on Defendant Stubbs through the New York Secretary of State. Mot. at 2-3. On September 29, 2023, prior to Defendant Peck being served, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. See Original Notice. Defendant Peck was eventually personally served at his Bridgehampton, New York, house on October 3, 2023.1 Affidavit at 1. Defendants subsequently filed an Amended Notice of Removal on October 4, 2023, adding 28 U.S.C. §1331 as a ground for removal jurisdiction. Amended Notice at 1. On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s served its Motion to Remand, see Mot.; Defendants filed their opposition, see Defendants Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Remand and for Sanctions, (“Opp.”), ECF 21; and Plaintiff filed a reply, see Plaintiff’s Reply (“Reply”), ECF 20. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Federal courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction” and cannot preside over cases absent subject matter jurisdiction. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); Frontera Res. Azer. Corp. v. State Oil Co. of Azer. Republic, 582 F.3d 393, 397 (2d Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Assa Co., 934 F.3d 185, 188 (2d Cir. 2019). “Congress has granted district courts original jurisdiction over cases in which there is a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. §1331, and certain cases between citizens of different states, so long as the requirements of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met, see 28 U.S.C. §1332.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original). A defendant in a civil state court action may remove its case to federal court, subject to certain requirements, if the case could have originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) (“any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” may (generally) be removed to federal court). To be eligible for removal, a case must satisfy the requirements of federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. See id. §§1331, 1332(a). If the complaint satisfies neither, the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case and it must be remanded to state court. As explained below, this Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction over this case and so it must be dismissed. See Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc., 96 F.4th 106, 121 (2d Cir. 2024) (If the Court “determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” it must “dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”). B. Removal Based on Diversity Jurisdiction If the only basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332, “the forum defendant rule applies.” Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 2018). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2), “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title 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). In the typical case, “application of the forum defendant rule is straightforward: a defendant is sued in a diversity action in the state courts of its home state, is served in accordance with state law, attempts to remove the case, and is rebuffed by a district court applying Section 1441(b)(2).” Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 705 (2d Cir. 2019); see, e.g., Wilmington Tr., N.A. v. Pearson, 18-CV-4845 (PAC), 2018 WL 3918182, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2018). Therefore, the first question before this Court is whether the forum defendant rule bars Defendants from removing this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Here, it is undisputed that the basic jurisdictional requirements of §1332(a) are satisfied as: Plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado; Defendants are both citizens of New York; and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Original Notice
