See Beighley, 868 F.2d at 782. Waiver is meant to prevent a defendant from using removal as an insurance policy against unfavorable treatment in state court. See Rosenthal v. Coates, 148 U.S. 142, 147-48, 13 S.Ct. 576, 577, 37 L.Ed. 399 (1893) (“[A] defendant cannot ... experiment on his case in the state court, and upon an adverse decision then transfer it to the federal court.”); Aynesworth v. Beech Aircraft Co., 604 F.Supp. 630, 637 (W.D.Tex.1985) (quoting Rosenthal). Thus, simply filing an answer, making preliminary motions, and the like does not waive removal. See Custom Blending Int’l, Inc., 958 F.Supp. at 289 (finding that a defendant did not waive removal by filing motions to transfer venue and summary judgment in state court); Labry v. IRS, 940 F.Supp. 148,149 (E.D.La.1996) (<HOLDING>). The Court observes that in most cases, the
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 answering a complaint does not waive removal recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that a party does not waive arbitration simply by failing to invoke it in the complaint or answer