defendants now argue that jurisdiction is improper in this Court in any event, the Court will remand the case to Superior Court. The Sixth Circuit has concluded that a state can waive the comity protections underlying the FTIA by removing a case, but it did not suggest that a federal court was required to entertain the action. In Howard v. City of Detroit, the court stated that defendants “waived” the argument that “the comity concerns described” in McNary “precluded the [non-injunctive] relief sought.” 73 Fed.Appx. 90, 94 (6th Cir.2003). The court explained that McNary was “based not on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but on principles of federalism and comity enforceable in equity,” and that “[a]n objection to the equity jurisdiction of a court, unlike subject matter j 1989) (<HOLDING>); Campbell v. Hilton Head No. 1 Pub. Serv.
holding that neither the new york location of the terrorist attack giving rise to the policyholders claim nor the new yorkbased claims adjustor rendered new york the locus of operative facts because new york was not the site of the contracts execution holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law holding that suit was barred as a matter of comity even though the state of new york  indicates that it would waive the bar of the tax injunction act holding that new york law applies to this matter holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act