DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs initiated this action in April 2018 in New York state court. Dkt. No. 2 (“Complaint”). It is one of many filed in this District by residents of the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York (the “Village”) against defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (“Saint-Gobain”) and Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) alleging that their local manufacturing facility released dangerous amounts of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (“PFOA”) into the Village’s drinking water, soil, and ambient air. In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the Village is also responsible because it inadequately monitored and maintained its municipal water system and continued to distribute the water despite knowing it was dangerously contaminated. Compl.91. Plaintiffs’ claims all arise under New York law, and Plaintiffs and the Village both reside in New York. Therefore, this case would appear to be outside the Court’s jurisdiction, which covers state-law cases only when no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant. 28 U.S.C. §1332. Nevertheless, Saint-Gobain removed this case to federal court. It asserts that it is “no[t] possib[le], based on the pleadings,” to conclude that Plaintiffs timely notified the Village of their claims as required under New York law, Dkt. No. 22 (“Opposition”) at 9 (quoting Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, 138 F.3d 459, 461 (2d Cir. 1998)) — even though the New York Supreme Court so concluded, Dkt. No. 1-2 (“State Court Decision”). Therefore, Saint-Gobain argues, the only proper defendants are Saint-Gobain and Honeywell, who reside outside New York, and the Court has diversity jurisdiction to hear this case.After removing the case, Saint-Gobain, with Honeywell, filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12 (“Motion to Dismiss”), and a motion to consolidate this case with the related actions, Dkt. No. 15 (“Motion to Consolidate”). Plaintiffs moved to remand. Dkt. No. 16 (“Remand Motion”). By agreement of the parties, the Court stayed briefing on the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 20 (“Stay Order”) at 2. In addition, Saint-Gobain asked the Court to abstain from deciding the Remand Motion until the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division decides the Village’s state court appeal. Dkt. 21 (“Cross-Motion to Abstain”). For the following reasons, the Cross-Motion to Abstain is denied, the Remand Motion is granted, and the case is remanded to state court. The Motions to Dismiss and to Consolidate are accordingly denied without prejudice, as the Court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the case or consolidate it with others.II. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDSaint-Gobain has not submitted any evidence challenging the jurisdictional facts alleged in the Complaint. Therefore, for present purposes, the Court takes those allegations as true and draws all inferences they suggest in favor of Plaintiffs. See Fed. Ins. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., 422 F. Supp. 2d 357, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“When considering a motion to remand, the district court accepts as true all relevant allegations contained in the complaint and construes all factual ambiguities in favor of the plaintiff.”); see also Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing a facial attack to the court’s jurisdiction, we draw all facts — which we assume to be true unless contradicted by more specific allegations or documentary evidence — from the complaint and from the exhibits attached thereto.”). It also considers some documents outside the pleadings that are susceptible to judicial notice. La. Mun. Police Emps’ Ret. Sys. v. Wynn, 829 F.3d 1048, 1063 (9th Cir. 2016). However, the jurisdictional facts must be viewed as they are “at the time when [the] defendant[s] file[d] the notice of removal,” and later developments cannot confer jurisdiction. Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. 2006).The Village operates and maintains a municipal water system that serves approximately 95 percent of its 4,500 residents. Compl.78. The wells serving it are about 500 yards from Saint-Gobain’s (formerly Honeywell’s) manufacturing facility at 14 McCaffrey Street in the Village — the primary source of the PFOA contamination. Id.88. The allegations concerning the McCaffrey Street facility, the decades of PFOA discharges from it into the Village’s soil, aquifer, and drinking water, and the effects on the Village’s residents and their properties, are more fully described in related cases filed beginning in 2016. See, e.g., Andrick v. Saint-Gobain, No. 17-CV-1058, 2018 WL 3068056, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018); Baker v. Saint-Gobain, 232 F. Supp. 3d 233, 239 (N.D.N.Y. 2017); Benoit v. Saint-Gobain, No. 16-CV-1057, 2017 WL 4331032, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2017).In essence, since at least the mid-2000s, studies have associated PFOA with an increased risk of various adverse health conditions, including high blood pressure, autoimmune disease, pregnancy complications, and kidney and testicular cancer. Compl.60. However, the chemical was once widely used in the process of making stain and water-resistant fabrics and other materials, including Teflon. Id.
52, 74. In the years during which the Saint-Gobain and Honeywell operated the factory, their employees washed waste PFOA from the manufacturing process down the drains, into the soil surrounding the facility, and into the underground wells and aquifers used for the Village’s drinking water. Id.
