1447(c). As set forth supra, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Title VII claim and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. Accordingly, the Court concludes that subject matter jurisdiction exists over the instant action, and that remand under § 1447(c) is not required. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Court finds that no ground for remand as set forth in § § 1441(c) and 1447(c) is applicable in the instant action, and holds that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand should be denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Maria Teresa Lozada’s “Motion Re-Urging Motion to Remand” (Docket No. 29) is DENIED. 1 . Plaintiff filed her Original Petition in the 210th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas. Defendants removed (5th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Neither party disputes the Court has
holding that failure to plead affirmative defense to original complaint does not amount to waiver where defense is raised in response to amended complaint holding that a party waives remand on the basis of a procedural defect by filing a motion to remand more than thirty days after the case is removed holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action holding that the plaintiffs waived any right to seek remand by filing a second amended complaint in federal court holding that a party waives remand by undertaking affirmative conduct in federal court such as participating in discovery or filing an amended complaint