Original Petition does not affirmatively reveal that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional minimum, despite the existence of statutory caps on the kinds of damages claimed by Plaintiff in excess of the required amount for federal jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs Original Petition does not contain “a specific allegation that damages are in excess of the federal jurisdictional amount,” the Court finds that Plaintiffs Original Petition did not start the thirty-day time limit for removal set forth in § 1446(b). Chapman, 969 F.2d at 163. Furthermore, Defendant timely removed the instant cause upon receipt of Plaintiffs Amended Petition, which unequivocally asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional requirement. See Bosky, 288 F.3d at 212 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court’s exercise of
holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute holding other paper must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal under the second paragraph of section 1446b 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 the information supporting removal in a copy of an amended pleading  must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal internal quotation omitted 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