failure to establish a more factually or legally compelling case than the case alleged in the initial pleading. Rather, Where the initial pleading is indeterminate, absent fraud by the plaintiff or pleadings that provide “no clue” that the case is not “not removable,” the burden is on the defendants desiring removal to scrutinize the case and to remove it in a timely fashion. The rule is not unduly harsh on the defendants. In effect, the defendants are put on inquiry notice by the plaintiffs initial pleading and must inquire of the plaintiff the jurisdictional facts necessary to the petition to remove. It is a burden that rightly rests on the defendants because they are the ones who seek access to a court of limited jurisdiction. Krantz v. Boneck, 599 F.Supp. 785, 787-88 (D.Nev.1984) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Defendants claim that
holding other paper must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal under the second paragraph of section 1446b holding that a writ of summons alone can no longer be the initial pleading that triggers the 30day period for removal under the first paragraph of 28 usc  1446b holding that removal under the second paragraph of  1446b did not apply and defendants therefore had removed outside of the thirty day time period triggered at the time of service of the complaint holding that the thirty day time limit was mandatory but not jurisdictional recognizing that while defendants may freely amend their notice of removal within thirty days of service they may not add new grounds for removal after the thirty day period has expired