ORDER

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

On March 20, 2017, Relator Michael Harmeyer filed a Response to Defendants' Amended Notice of Removal pursuant to Local Rule 81-1. [Filing No. 20.] In his response, Mr. Harmeyer argues that this Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over this matter because the State of Indiana is a real party in interest and "its presence destroys diversity jurisdiction." [Filing No. 20 at 2-4.] Mr. Harmeyer states that he "has no objection to litigating this action in the Southern District of Indiana, [but] it appears that this case must be remanded to the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana, as a matter of law." [Filing No. 20 at 4.] On April 11, 2017, Defendants filed a twenty page Reply in Support of Notice of Removal, in which they dispute Mr. Harmeyer's arguments. [Filing No. 25.]

The parties may not stipulate to jurisdiction, and the Court must ensure that it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this matter before it can proceed. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, 776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("the parties' united front is irrelevant since the parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement . . . and federal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte"). Accordingly, even though Mr. Harmeyer does not directly request that the Court remand this matter in his Response to Defendants' Amended Notice of Removal, the Court will treat the Response, [Filing No. 20], as a Motion to Remand, and will consider Defendants' Reply in Support of Notice of Removal, [Filing No. 25], to be a response to the Motion to Remand. Mr. Harmeyer shall have until April 20, 2017 to file a reply brief in support of remand.