Federal Jurisdiction Toolkit: Notices of Removal, Remand Motions, and Jurisdictional Allegations

How to use this toolkit

These are drafting starting points. Bracketed text is a placeholder, and any alternatives in a form must be selected or removed before filing. Local rules and standing orders often add requirements, so check them for each filing. The doctrine is in Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Arising Under, Diversity, Supplemental Claims, and the Defect That Never Waives. The decision sequence is in Getting Into or Staying Out of Federal Court: A Practical Guide to Jurisdiction and Removal. A printable task list is the Federal Jurisdiction and Removal Checklist: A Practical Checklist. Class actions have a separate set, the CAFA Toolkit: Notices of Removal, Jurisdictional Evidence, and Exception Briefing.

Contents

1. Citizenship worksheet
2. Jurisdictional allegation bank by entity type
3. LLC membership request letter
4. Jurisdictional interrogatories and document requests
5. Rule 7.1(a)(2) citizenship disclosure statement
6. Operating agreement clause for ownership disclosure
7. Removal clock worksheet
8. Notice of removal template
9. Defendant's consent to removal
10. Notice to adverse parties and notice to state court clerk
11. Declarations supporting citizenship and amount
12. Motion to remand outline
13. Request for fees under § 1447(c)
14. Opposition to remand outline
15. Amended complaint cover language after Royal Canin
16. Request for early review of an improper-joinder ruling
17. Motion for jurisdictional discovery
18. Late-defect papers: notice to the court, Rule 21 motion, and stipulation
19. Defect-and-cure decision matrix

1. Citizenship worksheet

Purpose: Establish each party's citizenship on the dates that matter, with a source for every entry. Owner: Associate or paralegal, reviewed by the signing lawyer. Timing: Before filing a complaint, and in the first week after service for a defendant. Update on any event that could affect jurisdiction.

Tier table for each LLC, LP, or unincorporated entity:

Stopping rule. Keep going until each line ends in a natural person, a corporation, or a sovereign. A foreign entity needs its own analysis, since it may be treated as either a corporation or an unincorporated association depending on its characteristics.

Drafting notes.

• The date column is the point of the exercise. Under Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004), a member's departure before trial did not help.
• Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990), counts limited partners. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2007), requires tracing through each layer.
• Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), requires evidence of the actual nerve center, not a filing listing an executive office.
• Any member who is a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad makes the entity stateless, under the logic of Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989). Add a column for this if the entity has overseas partners.

2. Jurisdictional allegation bank by entity type

Purpose: Provide model paragraphs for a complaint or notice of removal. Owner: Drafting lawyer. Timing: After Form 1 is complete. Rule 11 attaches to each allegation.

Person.

[Name] is a natural person and a citizen of [State], where [he/she/they] has been domiciled at all relevant times, including on [date of filing]. [Name] resides at a permanent home in [City, State], and intends to remain there indefinitely.

Corporation.

[Name] is a corporation organized under the laws of [State] with its principal place of business in [City, State], where its officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. It is a citizen of [State] and [State].

LLC with traced members.

[Name] is a limited liability company. Its members on [filing date] were (a) [Person], a citizen of [State]; and (b) [Holdco LLC], whose sole member was [Corp.], a [State] corporation with its principal place of business in [State]. [Name] is therefore a citizen of [State] and [State].

LLC whose members cannot be determined, on information and belief.

[Name] is a limited liability company. After reasonable inquiry, including review of [public filings, prior disclosure statements, and website], Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that no member of [Name] is a citizen of [Plaintiff's State(s)]. The membership information is within [Name]'s possession, and [Name] must disclose it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2).

Limited partnership.

[Name] is a limited partnership. Its general partner is [ ], a citizen of [ ], and its limited partners on [date] were [list], citizens of [ ].

Traditional trust, trustee suing.

[Trustee] is the trustee of the [Trust], holds legal title to the trust assets, and sues in [his/her] own name. [Trustee] is a citizen of [State].

Real estate investment trust or similar entity.

[Name] is an unincorporated entity organized under the laws of [State]. Its members, including its shareholders, on [date] were [list or description], and it takes their citizenship.

National bank.

[Bank] is a national banking association with its main office, as designated in its articles of association, in [State], and is a citizen of that State under 28 U.S.C. § 1348.

Estate.

[Name] is the legal representative of the estate of [decedent], who was domiciled in [State] at death. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), [Name] is deemed a citizen only of that State.

Foreign party.

[Name] is a citizen or subject of [foreign state] and is not admitted for permanent residence in the United States and domiciled in [Plaintiff's State].

Amount in controversy.

The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, because [Plaintiff seeks damages of $ ] [the value of the relief sought is $ ].

Federal question.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Count [ ] arises under [statute], which creates the cause of action. It has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts [ ] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they arise from the same facts.

Exclusive IP.

This Court has exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) because Count [ ] arises under [the Patent Act/the Copyright Act].

Drafting notes.

• The word "residence" does not satisfy the statute. Meyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2002); Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012).
• Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015), supports the information-and-belief form after inquiry. List what you checked. Other circuits may expect more, so confirm before relying on this version.
• REIT language tracks Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378 (2016). A court may look past the label if the form says "trust."
• Trustee language tracks Navarro Savings Association v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980).
• Bank language tracks Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006).
• A sole-member LLC that is itself owned by an individual is a good place to check for a recent move.
• The rule for pleading a federal question is Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

3. LLC membership request letter

Purpose: Get membership facts cheaply, and create a record of reasonable inquiry. Owner: Lawyer signing the complaint or notice. Timing: Before filing if you can do so without compromising strategy; otherwise, immediately after the opposing party appears.

Re: [Caption]

Dear [Counsel]:

We are evaluating subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter. Because a limited liability company takes the citizenship of each of its members, please provide, by [date], the name and citizenship of each member of [Entity] as of [date], including the members of any member that is itself an unincorporated entity.

If your client regards any of this information as confidential, we will agree to reasonable protections, including an attorneys-eyes-only designation, so long as the Court is able to confirm the facts. We ask that you also confirm whether any member is a United States citizen domiciled abroad.

We make this request in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) and our obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Please let me know if a call would be easier.

Drafting notes. Keep the response in the file. Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2003), says a party cannot litigate in diversity while keeping member information confidential from the court, and it puts the investigative obligation on lawyers for both sides. If you agree to a protective arrangement, use a sealed filing, and see Negotiating a Protective Order and Filing Under Seal: A Practical Guide.

4. Jurisdictional interrogatories and document requests

Purpose: Build the jurisdictional record if letters fail. Owner: Associate. Timing: Early, usually after the Rule 26(f) conference or with leave of court if earlier.

Interrogatory 1. Identify each person or entity that was a member, partner, or other equity holder of [Entity] on [date of filing] and [date of removal], and for each state its citizenship (for a natural person, the state of domicile; for a corporation, each state of incorporation and the location of its principal place of business; for any other entity, the same information for each of its members).

Interrogatory 2. State where [Entity]'s senior officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities, identifying each such officer, the officer's title, and the state in which the officer principally performs those functions.

Interrogatory 3. For [natural person], state each residence during the [two] years before [date of filing], and for each, the dates of residence and whether you considered it your permanent home.

Request for Production 1. Documents sufficient to show the ownership of [Entity] on [dates], including the schedule of members or partners.

Request for Production 2. For any natural person whose citizenship is disputed, documents sufficient to show voter registration, driver's license, and state of tax filing during [period].

Drafting notes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) govern, and jurisdictional facts are a proper subject. Keep the scope narrow, since a tailored request is much harder to resist. Requests for admission under Rule 36 can lock down one or two points. Nonparty fund administrators can be reached by subpoena under Rule 45.

5. Rule 7.1(a)(2) citizenship disclosure statement

Purpose: Satisfy the disclosure required in a § 1332(a) case. Owner: Each party's counsel. Timing: With the party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, or response, and promptly on any change. This is required in the removing defendant's first filing.

[Party] submits this statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2). Jurisdiction in this action is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The following individuals and entities have citizenship attributed to [Party] as of [the date this action was filed in/removed to this Court]:

1. [Name]: [citizen of State] [State of incorporation; principal place of business in State].
2. [Name], a [type of entity], whose members are: (a) [Name], [citizenship]; (b) [Name], [citizenship].

[Party] is therefore a citizen of [States]. [Party] will promptly supplement this statement if any required information changes.

Drafting notes. The rule text requires naming and identifying the citizenship of "every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party," when the case is filed in or removed to federal court and when a later event could affect jurisdiction. It does not reach CAFA cases under § 1332(d), though many lawyers file a version anyway. The 2022 committee note accepts that a court may limit disclosure where privacy interests are substantial and there is no apparent need for other parties to test it, so a confidential filing should be raised by motion rather than assumed. The separate Rule 7.1(a)(1) corporate statement is a different requirement. A pending amendment would expand it to publicly held business organizations that directly or indirectly own 10% or more of a party. It was recommended to the Judicial Conference in 2026 and is not yet in effect, so check the current rule.

6. Operating agreement clause for ownership disclosure

Purpose: Make sure a fund or holding LLC can actually make a Rule 7.1 statement years later. Owner: Transactional or fund counsel. Timing: At formation, on admission of a member, and on transfer.

Citizenship Information. Each Member shall, within [ten] business days after written request by the Manager, provide the Company with the information reasonably necessary to determine the Member's citizenship for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, including, for any Member that is not a natural person or corporation, the same information for each of its direct and indirect owners, and shall promptly notify the Company of any change. The Company shall keep this information current as of each date on which a Member is admitted or withdraws. The Company may disclose the information to the extent required by law or by court order, or as reasonably necessary for a filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, subject to any protective order the Company reasonably seeks.

Drafting notes. This solves a practical problem: many funds cannot answer the question quickly, and the removal deadline will not wait. Retain historic membership records, since jurisdiction is measured on the filing date. For related drafting advice, see Drafting an LLC Operating Agreement: A Practical Guide. A forum clause may belong in the same agreement, and its words matter: a clause naming the courts "of" a state may exclude federal courts there. FindWhere Holdings, Inc. v. Systems Environment Optimization, LLC, 626 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2010).

7. Removal clock worksheet

Purpose: Fix the deadlines in one place. Owner: Docketing clerk and responsible lawyer. Timing: Day of service; update when new papers arrive.

Drafting notes. Compute with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, No. 24-783 (U.S. Apr. 22, 2026), means no equitable fix is available for a missed ordinary deadline. The time for a § 1454 removal may be extended "for cause shown," but do not count on it. For a (b)(3) clock, keep the document that triggers it. Circuits differ on what triggers it, and Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc., 727 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2013), and Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 749 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2014), are useful starting points. Note on the one-year row: the statute applies the limit to removal "under subsection (b)(3)," so it is not a general time bar on a late-served defendant's removal based on the initial pleading.

8. Notice of removal template

Purpose: Remove the case with a complete and accurate statement of grounds. Owner: Lead defense lawyer. Timing: Within 30 days of service, targeting day 25.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE [ ] DISTRICT OF [ ], [ ] DIVISION

[PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, v. [DEFENDANT], Defendant.

Civil Action No. [ ] (Removed from the [Court], Case No. [ ])

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant [Name] removes this action from the [state court] to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ [1331, 1332, 1441, 1446] and states:

The State Court Action. 1. On [date], Plaintiff filed this action in the [state court], Case No. [ ]. True copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on Defendant are attached as Exhibit A. [A copy of the state court docket is attached as Exhibit B.]

2. Plaintiff asserts claims for [ ].

Timeliness. 3. Defendant was served on [date] by [method]. This Notice is filed within 30 days of service and is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

[Alternate 3, later paper:] The case stated by the initial pleading was not removable because [reason]. On [date], Defendant received [describe paper], from which it could first be ascertained that the case is or has become removable because [reason]. This Notice is filed within 30 days of that date under § 1446(b)(3) [and within one year of commencement of the action under § 1446(c)(1)].

Federal Question. [If applicable] 4. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Count [ ] arises under [statute]. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over Counts [ ] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they arise from the same facts: [one sentence].

Embedded federal issue. [If applicable, and only after testing all four factors] 4A. Count [ ], although pleaded under state law, necessarily raises [issue], which is actually disputed because [ ], substantial because [why it matters beyond this case], and capable of resolution in federal court without disturbing the federal-state balance because [ ].

Diversity. [If applicable] 5. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff is, and was on the date the action was filed and on the date of this Notice, a citizen of [ ]. Defendant [ ] is, and was on those dates, a citizen of [ ] because [use Form 2]. Complete diversity exists.

6. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. [The Complaint demands $ ] [The Complaint does not demand a specific sum, and [state practice] permits recovery beyond any amount demanded. Defendant plausibly alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because [facts].]

[Improper joinder, if applicable] 7. The citizenship of Defendant [ ] should be disregarded because it was improperly joined. [Under the applicable standard], Plaintiff cannot [establish a claim against it] because [specific facts and law, with any declaration attached].

Forum-Defendant Rule. 8. [Choose one] No defendant properly joined and served is a citizen of [State]. [Or] Defendant [ ] is a citizen of [State] but has not been served, according to the docket reviewed on [date], and the action is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). [Or] The forum-defendant rule does not apply because removal is not based solely on diversity.

Consent. 9. [Choose one] All defendants who have been properly joined and served consent, as shown by the attached consents. [Or] No other defendant has been served. [Or] Consent of [ ] is not required because it was improperly joined.

Venue. 10. Venue is proper because this District and Division embrace [county], where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Notice. 11. Defendant will promptly give written notice to all adverse parties and file a copy of this Notice with the clerk of the [state court] as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

Reservation. 12. By removing, Defendant does not waive any defense, including [insufficient service; lack of personal jurisdiction; failure to state a claim]. [Defendant demands a jury.]

[Signature block, signed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11]

Drafting notes.

• 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) requires a short and plain statement, and Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014), says a plausible allegation of amount will do, with proof required only on a challenge.
• Paragraph 5 uses "on the date filed and on the date of this Notice" because citizenship is measured at filing and the removal statute separately looks to complete diversity at removal, as the discussion of Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), in Grupo Dataflux explains.
• State every ground now. Wright & Miller's § 3733 explains that defendants generally may not add completely new grounds after the 30 days, though imperfect statements of citizenship can be corrected, 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
• Do not include paragraph 4A lightly. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), and Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), define the small category.
• Paragraph 7 should be read with Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, No. 24-724 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026), and Form 16. If you win on this ground, the win remains exposed until an appeal ends.
• Paragraph 8's second alternative is a snap removal. Verify an actual official filing first: Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947 (9th Cir. 2024), treats a notice filed before the clerk's acceptance as a nullity, and M & B Oil, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., 66 F.4th 1106 (8th Cir. 2023), confirms an unserved party still counts for complete diversity.
• Paragraph 12 follows the principle stated in Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2020). A jury demand can go here if the state filing did not include one.
• The fee and cover sheet are separate requirements. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and the court's current fee schedule.

9. Defendant's consent to removal

Purpose: Satisfy § 1446(b)(2)(A). Owner: Each co-defendant's counsel, with the removing lawyer chasing it. Timing: Filed with the notice or before the 30 days run.

[Caption]

CONSENT TO REMOVAL

Defendant [Name], through undersigned counsel, states that it was served on [date] [or has not been served], and it consents to the removal of this action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). This consent is given without waiver of any defense, including [lack of personal jurisdiction].

[Signature of counsel for the consenting defendant]

Representation language if a separate consent is not obtained in time (circuits permitting only):

Counsel for Defendant [Name], [attorney name], authorized undersigned counsel on [date] to represent that Defendant [Name] consents to this removal.

Drafting notes. Separate signed consents are the safe form. The representation form works under Mayo v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 713 F.3d 735 (4th Cir. 2013), and Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009), but Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988), calls for a timely written indication from each served defendant. Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc., 15 F.4th 148 (2d Cir. 2021), refused to excuse a mistaken delay by one served defendant. An earlier-served defendant may consent under § 1446(b)(2)(C) even though its own time has run, but only when a later-served defendant removes.

10. Notice to adverse parties and notice to state court clerk

Purpose: Effect the removal. Owner: Filing lawyer. Timing: Same day as the federal filing.

To adverse parties:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [date], Defendant [Name] filed a Notice of Removal of this action in the United States District Court for the [ ] District of [ ], Civil Action No. [ ]. A copy is attached. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the state court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.

To the state court clerk (captioned in the state court):

NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Defendant [Name] gives notice that on [date] it filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the [ ] District of [ ], Civil Action No. [ ]. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the filing of this copy effects the removal, and this Court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.

Drafting notes. Section 1446(d) ties the effect of removal to this step, and a gap invites state-court action. Pre-removal state orders remain in effect under 28 U.S.C. § 1450 and Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974), so note any that need attention. Follow the state court's filing procedure and keep the file-stamped copy. Then file proof in federal court.

11. Declarations supporting citizenship and amount

Purpose: Prove jurisdictional facts when challenged, or head off a challenge. Owner: Associate drafts, witness reviews and signs. Timing: Prepare with the notice; file as needed.

Nerve center declaration.

I am the [title] of [Corporation]. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated here. [Corporation]'s senior officers are [names and titles]. On [date], and at all times since [date], they directed, controlled, and coordinated [Corporation]'s activities from [address, city, state]. [Describe board and executive meetings, where key decisions are made, and where corporate records are maintained.] [If officers work remotely: identify each officer's work location and explain where the company's overall direction and coordination occurs.]

LLC membership declaration.

I am the [title] of [LLC] and am familiar with its membership records. On [filing date] and on [removal date], the members of [LLC] were: [table from Form 1]. For each member that is not a natural person or corporation, its members on those dates were: [ ].

Amount in controversy declaration.

I am [title]. Based on [business records/the demand letter dated (date)], the amount Plaintiff seeks to recover in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, because [calculation]. [The cost of the injunctive relief sought would be $ , calculated by .]

Domicile declaration.

I am [Name]. On [filing date], my permanent home was [address]. I had lived there since [date] and intended to remain. I am registered to vote in [State], hold a [State] driver's license, and filed [State] resident tax returns for [years]. [I own/rent] my home. [My family lives there; I work at .]

Drafting notes. The burden is on the party invoking jurisdiction, and Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), requires competent proof on a challenge. A court is entitled to reject a nerve center that is merely a mail drop or bare office. Tax-driven paper changes may not move domicile, as Galva Foundry Co. v. Heiden, 924 F.2d 729 (7th Cir. 1991), demonstrates. Under § 1446(c)(2)(B) and Dart Cherokee, a challenged amount is decided by a preponderance.

12. Motion to remand outline

Purpose: Return the case to state court. Owner: Plaintiff's lead lawyer. Timing: Within 30 days of the notice for any procedural defect, promptly for a jurisdictional one.

1. Introduction. One paragraph: why the case does not belong in federal court.
2. Background. Date of filing, date of service, date of notice, stated grounds.
3. Legal standard. Removing party bears the burden; Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941); removal statutes are construed narrowly in your circuit, if that is the law there. Note that Dart Cherokee left the general presumption question open and rejected it for CAFA.
4. No original jurisdiction, if applicable.
   • No federal claim on the face of the complaint: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908); defense does not count: Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987).
   • The Grable factors are not met: Gunn.
   • No complete diversity: Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). Missing LLC members: Carden; Thomas.
   • Local defendant properly joined: state law permits the claim; the removing party has a heavy burden; Skidmore v. Schinke, No. 25-1436 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2026), and Hain Celestial; and note that a defense applying to all defendants does not show improper joinder, Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
   • No Article III standing, on the defendant's own theory: Collier v. SP Plus Corp., 889 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2018).
5. Procedural defects, within 30 days.
   • Late notice: § 1446(b); Enbridge.
   • No consent: § 1446(b)(2)(A); Taylor.
   • Forum-defendant rule: § 1441(b)(2); address snap-removal law in your circuit, including Goodwin v. Reynolds, 757 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2014), where useful.
   • One-year bar: § 1446(c)(1).
6. Fees. Form 13.
7. Conclusion and proposed order.

Drafting notes. Section 1447(c) is the authority for both tracks and for fees. A remand on a § 1447(c) ground will generally not be reviewed, § 1447(d), and the court should say clearly what ground it relies on. Your proposed order should say so. Ask the court to identify the ground, since Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007), makes that characterization the key. Also ask for the certified copy to be sent to the state clerk.

13. Request for fees under § 1447(c)

Purpose: Recover costs of an improper removal. Owner: Plaintiff's lawyer. Timing: In the remand motion. Supporting billing detail follows if the court asks.

Plaintiff requests an award of just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Absent unusual circumstances, an award is appropriate where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005). Defendant lacked such a basis here because [the notice was filed [ ] days after service, on the face of Defendant's own return] [the complaint pleads no federal claim, and the only federal issue is a defense foreclosed by Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams] [Defendant [ ] is a Texas citizen by its own admission and was served before removal]. Plaintiff's counsel spent [ ] hours at $[ ] per hour on the removal and remand, and Plaintiff will submit detailed records on the Court's request.

Drafting notes. Tie the request to a plain failure. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005), makes close questions a poor basis for fees. An order awarding fees can survive even where the remand itself is unreviewable, but check your circuit. Recoverable amounts and proof are covered in Preparing and Opposing a Fee Petition: A Practical Guide and the Fee Shifting and Litigation Cost Recovery Toolkit.

14. Opposition to remand outline

Purpose: Keep the case in federal court. Owner: Defense lead. Timing: By the response date under local rules.

1. Timeliness of the motion. Any procedural ground raised after 30 days is waived. § 1447(c); Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006); Holbein v. TAW Enterprises, Inc., 983 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
2. Jurisdictional facts, with declarations. Form 11.
3. Amount. Dart Cherokee; a later stipulation does not reduce the amount: St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938).
4. Improper joinder, if applicable. State your circuit's standard, supply evidence on discrete facts where allowed, and address Justice Thomas's Hain Celestial concurrence if it is raised. Support comes from cases like Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001). Distinguish Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009).
5. Forum-defendant rule. The text argument: Encompass Insurance Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant Inc., 902 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2018); Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2019); Texas Brine Co. v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., 955 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2020).
6. Later-paper timing. The clock did not start earlier: Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2010); Lovern v. General Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 1997).
7. One-year bad faith, if applicable. Hoyt v. Lane Construction Corp., 927 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2019).
8. Fees. Objectively reasonable basis, with the unsettled law identified.

Drafting notes. Do not raise a new removal ground in the brief unless your circuit permits it. If you are also planning to move to dismiss for lack of standing, reconsider; Polo v. Innoventions International, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016), shows the outcome. And keep the proposed remedy clear: if the court finds no jurisdiction, the order is remand, not dismissal.

15. Amended complaint cover language after Royal Canin

Purpose: Trigger remand by deleting federal claims. Owner: Plaintiff's lawyer. Timing: Within the as-of-right window under Rule 15(a)(1) if possible.

Notice of Filing Amended Complaint and Request for Remand. Plaintiff files the attached First Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) [with Defendant's written consent under Rule 15(a)(2)] [with leave of Court]. The Amended Complaint asserts only claims arising under [State] law. The parties are not completely diverse [or: the amount does not provide an independent basis], and no federal question appears. The Court therefore lacks original and supplemental jurisdiction, and remand is required. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Drafting notes. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), applies only if no independent basis remains; if the parties are diverse, the case stays. Confirm the amended state claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue under Gunn. A reduced damages demand is not enough under the opinion's footnote 8. In the Ninth Circuit, a stipulated dismissal may have the same effect, under Walker v. Arizona, No. 24-1806 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025), and class-allegation deletion can end CAFA jurisdiction under Faulk v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., No. 24-4078 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2025). Before dropping a claim, consider whether it can be brought later; see the guide and Amended Pleading and Relation Back Checklist: A Practical Checklist. The defendant's response, if leave is needed, is a Rule 15 opposition on futility, delay, or prejudice grounds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

16. Request for early review of an improper-joinder ruling

Purpose: Reduce the Hain Celestial risk. Owner: Defense lead, sometimes jointly with the plaintiff. Timing: Promptly after the order denying remand.

Defendant requests that the Court [direct entry of final judgment as to Defendant [ ] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)] [certify its Order dated [ ] for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)]. The Order dismissing [ ] as improperly joined determines whether this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Under Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, No. 24-724 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026), a judgment entered after an erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse defendant must be vacated. The Supreme Court noted that Rule 54(b) and § 1292(b) can help resolve uncertainty over whether a nondiverse party should remain in a case. Early review will avoid the risk that the parties try this case and must then begin again in state court. [For § 1292(b): The Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of the litigation, because [specific state-law question].] [For Rule 54(b): There is no just reason for delay because [ ].]

Drafting notes. The source is footnote 3 of Hain Celestial. A court is not obligated to grant the request. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) requires the district court's certification and permission of the court of appeals, on a 10-day petition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) needs a final disposition of a party. Forms are in the Interlocutory Review Toolkit: 1292(b) Certifications, Rule 54(b) Judgments, and Mandamus Petitions. The plaintiff may oppose to keep the issue in reserve, and that is a legitimate choice, so build the record in your motion.

17. Motion for jurisdictional discovery

Purpose: Get contested facts before a jurisdictional ruling. Owner: Whichever party needs the facts. Timing: With or before a remand motion, or in response to a factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge.

[Party] moves for limited jurisdictional discovery. The parties dispute [the citizenship of [ ]'s members] [the location of [ ]'s nerve center]. The relevant facts are within [ ]'s control. [Party] asks for leave to serve [the attached three interrogatories and two document requests] and to take one deposition of [ ] limited to [ ] hours, to be completed within [ ] days. [Party] requests that the Court defer ruling on [the pending motion] until [ ] days after that discovery is complete.

Drafting notes. On a factual challenge, a plaintiff who pleaded in good faith is entitled to limited discovery to establish that complete diversity exists under Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015). In a removed case, the removing party carries the burden, and a court may see discovery as a way around a thin notice, so show why the facts are out of reach. Rule 12(b)(1) motions are discussed in the Justiciability Toolkit: Standing Allegations, Rule 12(b)(1) Motions, and Mootness Briefing. Use the Form 4 requests.

18. Late-defect papers

Purpose: Present a late-discovered defect candidly and preserve what can be saved. Owner: Lead lawyer on each side. Timing: Immediately upon confirming the fact.

Notice to the court.

[Party] notifies the Court of the following facts bearing on subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). On [date], [Party] learned that [ ]. Attached is [declaration/record]. On these facts, [Party] [believes that complete diversity did not exist on the date this action was filed] [believes that the defect can be cured as set out below]. [Party] requests a status conference.

Rule 21 motion (plaintiff or with consent).

Plaintiff moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 to dismiss [nondiverse party], without prejudice, to preserve the Court's jurisdiction. [Party] is dispensable because [Rule 19(b) analysis]. Dismissal will not prejudice any party because [ ]. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989). [The remaining parties are completely diverse.]

Stipulation on the next forum.

The parties stipulate that (1) this action shall be [remanded to the [state court]] [dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction]; (2) all discovery taken in this action may be used in any refiled or remanded action as if taken there; (3) expert disclosures and reports served here are deemed served there; and (4) [Defendant agrees not to assert a limitations defense based on the time the action was pending here, to the extent permitted by law].

Drafting notes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) makes this mandatory once the court determines jurisdiction is lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1653 fixes allegations only, per Newman-Green. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 cannot be used by a defendant to oust a properly joined nondiverse codefendant over the plaintiff's objection in a wrongly removed case, under Hain Celestial, which reserved the question for parties added after proper removal, as in Gorfinkle v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 431 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005). Check Rule 19 before calling a party dispensable. A remand keeps the original filing date, while dismissal requires § 1367(d) or a state savings statute, under Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71 (2018), for supplemental claims only. Courts can shift fees to counsel, as in Belleville Catering, and may award just costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1919. Tolling language in a stipulation may not bind a court in every state, so check your state's law.

19. Defect-and-cure decision matrix

Purpose: Pick the right tool quickly. Owner: Anyone on the team. Timing: When a defect is raised.

These forms are general information and not legal advice for a specific situation; adapt them to your court, your circuit, and your facts.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Arising Under, Diversity, Supplemental Claims, and the Defect That Never Waives: the doctrine and cases behind each form.

Related Guides

• Getting Into or Staying Out of Federal Court: A Practical Guide to Jurisdiction and Removal: when and why to use these forms.
• Drafting an LLC Operating Agreement: A Practical Guide: context for the Form 6 ownership clause.
• Negotiating a Protective Order and Filing Under Seal: A Practical Guide: for confidential membership information.
• Preparing and Opposing a Fee Petition: A Practical Guide: proof for a § 1447(c) request.

Related Checklists

• Federal Jurisdiction and Removal Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the matching task list.
• Amended Pleading and Relation Back Checklist: A Practical Checklist: for a Royal Canin amendment.

Related Toolkits

• CAFA Toolkit: Notices of Removal, Jurisdictional Evidence, and Exception Briefing: forms for class action removals.
• Interlocutory Review Toolkit: 1292(b) Certifications, Rule 54(b) Judgments, and Mandamus Petitions: early review of a joinder ruling.
• Justiciability Toolkit: Standing Allegations, Rule 12(b)(1) Motions, and Mootness Briefing: jurisdictional motions generally.
• Fee Shifting and Litigation Cost Recovery Toolkit: fee recovery generally.
• Computer Access Dispute Toolkit: Access Revocation Letters, Loss Worksheets, and Pleading Outlines: pleading outlines where a CFAA count supplies the federal question.
• Lateral Hire Toolkit: Candidate Certifications, Onboarding Instructions, and Cease-and-Desist Responses: trade secret disputes in which forum choice follows from the claims pleaded.