determine the “where,” “when,” and “how” of petitioning for removal. The question “who” can remove is resolved, insofar as the FDIC is concerned, within the language of § 1819 itself which provides for removal in “[a]ll suits ... to which the [FDIC] shall be a party.... ” Id. at 846 (citation omitted) (alterations in original). It followed that “the ‘all defendants’ limitation i[n] 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) does not affect the right of the FDIC to remove under § 1819(4).” Id. The result was not “unusual,” the court observed, since “in other instances where special, rather than general, removal statutes control, the requirement that all defendants join in the petition for removal has been held inapplicable.” Id. (citing Bradford v. Harding, 284 F.2d 307, 309-10 (2d Cir.1960) (Friendly, J.) (<HOLDING>)). The second case is In re Federal Savings &
holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391 holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the rule of unanimity does not apply to 28 usc  1442 holding in 28 usc  2255 proceeding that lafler does not establish new rule of constitutional law