for the purposes of a motion to remand. See Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir.1997). 3 . The Eleventh Circuit employs the "unanimity rule,” which requires that all defendants consent to removal. See Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen and Assistants, Local 349, 427 F.2d 325, 326-27 (5th Cir.1970); Miles v. Kilgore, 928 F.Supp. 1071, 1076 (N.D.Ala.1996). This rule is subject to the following exception: "unless and until the case is remanded it is not necessary that a fraudulently or improperly joined defendant join with the other defendants in a petition for removal.” Erkins v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 866 F.Supp. 1373, 1375 (N.D.Ala.1994) (citations omitted); see also Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc., 713
holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect holding that a party fraudulently joined to defeat removal need not join in a removal petition and is disregarded in determining diversity of citizenship holding that the failure of all defendant to join in the petition for removal mandated remand to state court holding that a party fraudulently joined to defeat removal need not join in removal petition holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties