have filed essentially the same cause of action in both the DC Superior Court as well as the DC Federal Court”); see also Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Remand, Ex. B. Thus, on at least two prior occasions, the plaintiffs have affirmatively invoked federal jurisdiction over the claims raised in the Superior Court complaint. See Pls.’ Mot. to Remand at 3, 6. In so doing, they have waived any right to remand they may have otherwise had based on procedural defects in the removal of this action. See Koehnen, 89 F.3d at 528 (concluding that the plaintiff waived any procedural defect in connection with removal by moving to file a supplemental complaint in the federal court and participating in oral argument on the motion); Moffit v. Balt. Am. Mortgage, 665 F.Supp.2d 515, 517 (D.Md.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Akin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d
holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing holding that the plaintiffs waived any right to seek remand by filing a second amended complaint in federal court holding defendant waived complaint holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that a party waives remand by undertaking affirmative conduct in federal court such as participating in discovery or filing an amended complaint