under § 1441, as might be expected, is an issue of first impression for the Court. The court in In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liab. Litig. noted that parties may use either § 1452 or § 1441, “or both to remove a case with federal questions and involving a bankruptcy.” 522 F.Supp.2d at 561. Moreover, the court noted that improperly removed cases do not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 562-64 (citing Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 932 F.2d 1540, 154648 (5th Cir. 1991), for the reasoning that a plaintiff waiver of removal defects by failing to seek remand within the thirty day window provided by § 1447(c) does not deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction); see also Menendez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 364 Fed.Appx. 62 (5th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiff sought removal within the
holding that the laterserved defendants  had thirty days from the date of service on them to file a notice of removal with the unanimous consent of their codefendants even though the firstserved codefendants did not file a notice of removal within thirty days of service 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 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 the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective recognizing that while defendants may freely amend their notice of removal within thirty days of service they may not add new grounds for removal after the thirty day period has expired