from removal read the words “first served” into the statute. See, e.g., Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of N. America, 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir.1988). This construction of the statute opens the way for the plaintiff to deliberately avoid removal by delayed service upon a defendant anticipated to seek removal. Yet, the real question should be whether the “first served” rule is sound when it is subject to such problems in application whenever there is non-simultaneous service — a common circumstance. It also effectively blocks a later-added defendant ... from any removal right. Likewise, it constitufes “inequity” for many defendants, as the Fourth Circuit characterized the Getty Oil conclusion. McKinney v. Board of Trustees of Mayland Community College, 955 F.2d 924, 926-27 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). And, application of Rule 11 to Section
holding that a third party indemnity defendant may remove a case to federal court pursuant to  1441c holding that plaintiff who filed suit in federal court could not later file a declaratory judgment petition in state court making allegations substantially similar to those made in federal court and seeking resolution of primarily the same issues holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that later served defendants each have thirty days to remove to federal court holding that to exhaust a claim a petitioner must present it to the state courts under the same theory in which it is later presented in federal court