to overcome the rights of defendants to remove. 827 F.Supp. at 1238-39. Accordingly, this court agrees with the majority position, and finds that the non-signing defendants did not properly join in or consent to the removal petition. While they may have communicated their consent to the signing defendants, they did not communicate their consent in any writing directed to the court. Them alleged consent is, therefore, legally insufficient. The removing defendants argue that, notwithstanding this conclusion, they should be permitted to amend the removal petition and thereby cure the defect. It is uniformly recognized that a defect such as is seen here “is not deemed to be jurisdictional.” Balazik, 44 F.3d at 213 (citing Johnson v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 892 F.2d 422, 423 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); In re Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 964 F.2d
holding that a party fraudulently joined to defeat removal need not join in removal petition holding that the failure of all defendant to join in the petition for removal mandated remand to state court holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect holding that failure to include all state court pleadings and process with the notice of removal is procedurally incorrect but is not a jurisdictional defect holding that plaintiffs failure to allege citizenship of first defendant did not constitute good cause for second defendants failure to timely join in removal petition