and whether the Tribe’s immunity, if intact, protects the Health Board and the Health Board’s Chairperson. If the tribal immunity defense is not dispositive as to all Defendants, the district court also should address on its merits Defendants’ separate defense that the FMLA is not applicable to the dispute at hand. REVERSED and REMANDED. 1 . The district court decided Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the waiver-by-removal issue based solely on the pleadings, and we therefore "take as true the allegations of the com ancheria Band of Pomo Indians of Cal., No. C-01-4125 VRW, 2002 WL 34727095, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2002) (same), with State Eng’r of the State of Nev. v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians of Nev., 66 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1173 (D. Nev. 1999) (<HOLDING>), vacated on reconsideration on other grounds,
holding that tribes voluntary participation in administrative proceedings is not the express and unequivocal waiver of tribal immunity that we require in this circuit holding that the tribal defendants removal of the case amounted to a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal court holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that wjaiver of the right to remove must be clear and unequivocal  and that standard was not met by an agreement in which defendants consented to filing of suit in state court but which did not address removal holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal