ORDER

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

On September 11, 2014, Defendants removed Plaintiffs' state court action to federal court, alleging that this Court could exercise diversity jurisdiction over this action. [Filing No. 1.] The Court must independently determine whether proper diversity among the parties exists. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). Based on Defendants' Notice of Removal, the Court cannot determine whether it can exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Defendants allege that "[o]n information and belief, the Plaintiffs . . . are . . . citizens of the State of Indiana." [Filing No. 1 at 2.] As the proponent of federal jurisdiction, the burden rests with Defendants to show by a preponderance of the evidence facts that suggest the Court has diversity jurisdiction, Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2006), and allegations based on information and belief are insufficient, America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, LP, 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992). Because of this, the Court cannot assure itself that it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement by October 6, 2014, setting forth the citizenship of each party and whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. If the parties cannot agree on the contents of a joint statement, competing statements must be filed by that date. Filing a compliant statement will satisfy Plaintiffs' obligations under Local Rule 81-1.