removing defendants’ joinder obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and the case-law elsewhere — and the statute itself — do not provide unambiguous guidance. More importantly, the only party challenging the propriety of the removal is Newark, which, as a nominal party, lacks standing to do so. Logic dictates that if a nominal party lacks the power to object to its own failure to join in or consent to the removal, it similarly lacks the power to impugn the other defendants’ failure to formally do so. Moreover, no other party, including plaintiff, has complained of any defect in the removal petition, and were any party to do so now, any such complaint would be treated as having been waived. Allbritton Communications Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 766 F.2d 812, 820 (3d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081, 106 S.Ct. 850,
holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion applies in removal proceedings holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct 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 district court cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure holding that removal proceedings are in the nature of process and defects in the removal procedures are waivable