the existence of federal jurisdiction. Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163, 169 (4th Cir. 2014). The court is “obliged to construe removal jurisdiction strictly because of the ‘significant federalism concerns’ implicated.” Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994)). “Therefore, if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand to state court is necessary.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 336 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphasizing that courts have a “duty to construe removal jurisdiction strictly and resolve all doubts in favor of remand”); Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Federal removal jurisdiction may be exercised
holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that the failure of all defendant to join in the petition for removal mandated remand to state court holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal recognizing congress clear intention to restrict removal and to resolve all doubts about the propriety of removal in favor of retained state court jurisdiction