removal premature. See id. at 7. Despite any insufficient service, this Court finds that the defendant’s removal was not improper. Federal courts have held that formal service is not required before removing a case. See Addison v. First Family Financial Services, No. 4:06-CV-22LR, 2006 WL 1307948, at *1 (S.D.Miss. May 10, 2006) (stating that service of process need not occur before removal); Arthur v. Litton Loan Serv. LP, 249 F.Supp.2d 924, 931 (E.D.Tenn. 2002) (“[SJervice of process is not a prerequi site to the defendants exercising their right of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446”.); North v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 600 F.Supp.2d 1263, 1270 (M.D.Fla.2009) (stating that a defendant may remove prior to service); Watanabe v. Lankford, 684 F.Supp.2d 1210, 1214-15 (D.Haw.2010) (<HOLDING>); Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 231 F.3d 165, 177
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 notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective holding that the absence in the notice of removal of copies of the summonses served on the defendants uncorrected until after the thirty 30 day removal period had expired violates 28 usc  1446a and bars removal