Civ. 1:00CV00395, 2000 WL 1456292, *2 (M.D.N.C. Sept.6, 2000) ("[RJegardless of whether an unserved resident defendant may be ignored in determining removability under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), the citizenship of all named defendants, whether served with process or not, must be considered in determining whether complete diversity exists,”); In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 889 F.Supp. 271, 274 (E.D.Tex.1995) ("Section 1441(b) ... did not change the removal requirement set forth in [Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 59 S.Ct. 347, 83 L.Ed. 334 (1939)] that a court, in determining the propriety of removal based on diversity of citizenship, must consider all named defendants regardless of service.”); Thigpen v. Cheminova, Inc., 992 F.Supp. 864, 871 (S.D.Miss.1997) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The court in Workman v. National Supaflu
recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act holding that a notice that misled claimants by equating a new application with an appeal of the initial determination violated due process recognizing that service of process irrelevant in the initial determination of diversity holding that fedrcivp 4d1 governs the method of service of process in a diversity action holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state