Gwen Caranchini filed in state court two quiet-title actions, and the cases were removed and consolidated before the district *550 court 1 ultimately granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Caranchini appeals, challenging the orders denying her motions to remand. Following de novo review, see Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944, 947 (8th Cir. 2011), we conclude that defendants’ notice of removal in each case was timely, and was properly based on diversity jurisdiction, without considering any fraudulently joined defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (removal of civil actions), and § 1332(a)(1) (diversity jurisdiction); Knudson v. Systems Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2011) (defendant not required to “glean” amount in controversy from complaint; complaint that did not explicitly state amount in controversy did not trigger running of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)’s 30-day deadline); Addo v. Globe Life and Accident Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 759, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2000) (post-complaint letter concerning settlement terms constituted “other paper” under § 1446(b) for purposes of notifying defendant that amount in controversy exceeded jurisdictional amount and triggering running of 30-day notice-of-removal deadline); Filia v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 809-10 (8th Cir. 2003) (defining fraudulent joinder); Libby v. Uptegrove, 988 S.W.2d 131, 132-33 (Mo.Ct.App. 1999) (trustee is not necessary party to action affecting deed of trust).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.