For the reasons set forth above and as explained by the magistrate judge, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and must remand it to state court. See Hormel HealthLabs, Inc. v. Ventura Foods, LLC, No. 04-cv-4695 (JNE/JGL), 2004 WL 2526423, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2004) ("A district court should sua sponte remand a case any time it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction."). This Court need not address Green's contention that he is "separately" filing the documents required by 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446.
"If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted" the Court must order a summary remand.Id. "A district court should sua sponte remand a case any time it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Hormel HealthLabs, Inc. v. Ventura Foods, LLC, No. Civ. 04-4695, 2004 WL 2526423, at * 1 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2004) (Ericksen, J.). Federal jurisdiction is governed by the "`well-pleaded complaint rule' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Magee v. Exxon Corp., 135 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. 1998).