case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ("Northern District”). Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Remand” in that court, seeking remand because (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the Northern District was not the proper district for removal. Judge McBryde of the Northern District issued an order partially granting Plaintiff's Motion insofar as Defendants improperly removed the case to the Northern District, and transferred the case to the United Stales Court for the Western District of Texas. In the instant Motion, Plaintiff re-urges the portion of her Motion to Remand that has yet to be ruled on; that is, whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 2 . See Sherrod v. Am. Airlines, 132 F.3d 1112, 1117 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Odeco Oil & Gas Co., 864 F.2d 40,
holding that affidavit submitted to the court after the plaintiffs motion to remand was sufficient to cure the defect in the removal petition holding that remand from texas court of criminal appeals was equivalent to filing transcript and statement of facts thereby giving parties thirty days to file a brief holding that trial court has no power to allow party to amend motion for new trial more than thirty days after trial court signed the final judgment and that denial of amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after judgment preserved nothing for appellate review 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 the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal