OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Putnam County (the “State Court”), against defendants Douglas W. Logan (“Logan”), Homeland Towers, LLC (“Homeland”), New Cingular Wireless PCD LLC (“AT&T”), and New York SMSA Limited Partnership (“Verizon”), seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunctions, and bringing claims for trespass, nuisance, and nuisance per se. Defendants removed the case to this Court.1 Now pending is plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case to the State Court. (Docs. ##18, 19, 20). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND In considering a motion to remand, the Court accepts as true all relevant allegations in the complaint and construes all factual ambiguities in the moving party’s favor. See Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., 22 F. Supp. 2d 357, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The Court may also consider materials outside of the complaint, “such as documents attached to a notice of removal or a motion to remand that convey information essential to the court’s jurisdictional analysis.” Romero v. DHL Express (U.S.A), Inc., 2016 WL 6584484, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016). Plaintiffs each own property abutting a private road in Nelsonville, New York, called Rockledge Road. According to plaintiffs, Rockledge Road is composed of parcels of several adjacent properties, including plaintiffs’, that provide those adjacent properties with access to a public street. Plaintiffs allege Logan previously owned a plot of land at 15 Rockledge Road, referred to as the “Landlocked Parcel,” which he then sold to Verizon, AT&T, and Homeland (together, the “Wireless Defendants”). (Doc. #19-2 (“Compl.”) at
2-4). Plaintiffs claim Logan’s predecessor in interest was deeded a right-of-way in common with others over Rockledge Road, not an easement. (Id. 11-12). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim Logan only deeded to the Wireless Defendants a right-of-way, rather than an easement, over plaintiffs’ properties. In the background of this suit is a long history of litigation related to the Wireless Defendants’ planned construction of a wireless telecommunications services tower (the “Facility”) in the Village of Nelsonville. In short, after being denied a building permit for the Facility in 2018, the Wireless Defendants filed two actions against Nelsonville in this Court (the “Prior Actions”) alleging violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”). The Prior Actions eventually terminated in a stipulation of settlement and consent order (the “Consent Order”). Pursuant to the Consent Order, the Village of Nelsonville agreed to grant the Wireless Defendants a building permit necessary to construct the proposed Facility at 15 Rockledge Road, on the Landlocked Parcel. (See generally Doc. #19-1 (“Consent Order”)). The Consent Order included the Wireless Defendants’ building permit applications. To facilitate construction, the Wireless Defendants proposed making certain improvements to Rockledge Road, including felling trees alongside the road, widening the road, and digging a trench to run utilities alongside the road. However, the Consent Order stated that “the Village makes no representation whatsoever whether the ability or authority to construct or maintain the rights [the Wireless Defendants] claim under the ‘Existing Rockledge Road Access Easement.’” (Consent Order 8.) The Village approved the Consent Order on January 29, 2020. And, after the Wireless Defendants made several revisions to their permit application, the Village approved and issued to the Wireless Defendants a building permit on June 15, 2020. This permit included the proposed modifications to Rockledge Road. (Compl.
