Amendment. Bylinski v. Allen Park, 169 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir.1999); cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1037, 119 S.Ct. 2396, 144 L.Ed.2d 796 (1999). 12 . At the time of the writing of this Opinion, it is not clear as to whether the Court’s holding in Pohutski and Jones applies to the cases before me. 13 . The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 14 . Plaintiffs contend that removal is only proper when jurisdiction existed at the time of removal. This argument is misleading. While removal on the basis of diversity of jurisdiction requires that complete diversity existed at the time of removal (see, e.g., Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>)), there is no such requirements for removal
holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable holding that the district court erred in not determining whether the amount in controversy necessary to create diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal holding that the court of appeals in applying state law on appeal of a diversity action must apply law of the state as it existed at the time of its decision rather than as it stood at the time the case was decided in district court holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same