standpoint, is the only avenue available to them given the early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the court need not rely on the defendants’ notice of removal to establish the amount in controversy. See Heller, 276 F.Supp.2d at 181 (D.Me.2003) (looking beyond notice of removal, which erroneously invoked bankruptcy jurisdiction, to complaint itself, which showed diversity jurisdiction). The fact that the notice fails to state the amount constitutes a mere “defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Harmon v. OKI Sys., 902 F.Supp. 176, 177 (S.D.Ind.1995), aff'd, 115 F.3d 477 (7th Cir.1997); Tate v. Werner Co., 2002 WL 1398533, at *4 (S.D.Ind. June 26, 2002); accord In re Allstate Ins. Co., 8 F.3d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Under the statute, a motion to remand the
holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that plaintiffs failure to allege citizenship of first defendant did not constitute good cause for second defendants failure to timely join in removal petition holding that a proper eleventh amendment challenge strips the courts of jurisdiction for the purposes of the removal statute 28 usc  1447c holding that failure to allege plaintiffs citizenship in notice of removal amounted to defect in removal procedure under former version of 28 usc  1447c