Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Def. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Pl. Mot., ECF No. 3. Plaintiff argues that under the Declaratory-Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, a federal court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration____” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (emphasis added))., Plaintiff submits that in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction of declaratory judgment actions, the federal courts should “consider the state interest in having the state courts determine questions of state law.” Pl. Mot. ¶¶ 12-13 (quoting State Auto Ins. Co. v. Summy, 234 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted)). Plaintiff
holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction holding that decisions in declaratory judgment actions must yield to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration and the desire of insurance companies and their insureds to receive declarations in federal court on matters of purely state law has no special call on the federal forum holding that wjhere such a transaction involves commerce within the meaning of the federal arbitration statute the state law and policy with respect thereto must yield to the paramount federal law holding in the declaratory judgment context the normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration