case of other removed actions, the federal court takes the case as it finds it, subject to the applicable federal rules, and treats everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court. Vernon Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Commerce Sav. & Loan, 677 F.Supp. 495, 498 (N.D.Tex.1988) (emphasis added). The Court holds today that, with regard to removal under 12 U.S.C. 1819, one of the applicable federal rules continues to be set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), requiring timely removal by the FDIC. As stated above, Defendant FDIC’s removal was required on or about August 17, 1989, and its September 8, 1989 notice was therefore untimely. III. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. However, the Court DENIES Plainti 9-0494-H, slip op. at 2 (Sanders, C.J.) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Plaintiff's Motion at 8. 4 . The FDIC
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 federal common law doench doctrine protects the fslic and the fdic in both receiver and corporate capacities holding that a receiver appointed for the parent corporation of the debtor was not a custodian of the debtorsubsidiary because the receiver was not appointed to take control of the debt ors assets for the benefit of the debtors creditors holding that when the federal savings and loan insurance corporation fslic is appointed receiver for a failed thrift that is a party to litigation action then becomes removable by fslic pursuant to 28 usc  1446b and must be removed within thirty days of the appointment holding that if the attorney general issues a scope certificate the action must be removed to federal court and the united states must be substituted as the party defendant by the plain language of 28 usc  2679d2 no discretion is given to the district court