US · rules
S.D. Ind. L.R. 81-1
Notice of Removal and Response in Diversity Cases
(a) Notice Requirement. Every notice of removal based, in part or in whole, on
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) must include:
(1) a statement that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs at
issue satisfies the jurisdictional amount requirement; and
(2) a listing of the citizenship of each party.
(b) Response. Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal, every plaintiff
who has not filed a motion to remand must file a statement responding to the notice of
removal’s allegations as to the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy. If
the plaintiff lacks sufficient information upon which to form a belief about those allegations
despite meeting and conferring in good faith with the removing party about them, the
plaintiff may so state.
(c) Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Not Satisfied. Filing the notice of removal or the response does
not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). Any disclosure statement required
by Rule 7.1(a)(2) must be filed as a separate document.
(d) Burden of Proof. Nothing in this rule alters the burden of proof with respect to
jurisdictional allegations.
History
Note: Amended July 1, 2023, to clarify that disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 must be filed separately and in addition to the statement required by Local Rule 81-1.
Provenance
- Source
- www.insd.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-18
- Edition
- fed-district-2026-09-19
- Content hash
3cd42f2e8a3a8f9ad860cbb0965aea40fe3d1e27faae5a607ce4f709fe5c26b7
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.