Depot, Inc., 420 F.3d 1090, 1094-95 (10th Cir.2005). And, “there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction.” Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.1995). Doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir.1982). Plaintiff argues that the court should remand this case back to state court because defendants (1) failed to attach service of process to its Notice of Removal and Amended Notice of Removal, (2) failed specifically to allege diversity jurisdiction, and (3) failed properly to file the Notice of Removal in state court. Plaintiff also argues in its Supplemental Motion to Remand that defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal must be filed within the thirty-day period se d 930, 932-33 (5th Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>). Many district courts in several different
holding that a defendants failure to attach process to its notice of removal was not fatal and did not require remand 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 28 usc  1446as requirement of attached process is jurisdictional and defendants failure to attach process precluded removal 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 holding that defendants failure to attach a copy of the complaint to its notice of removal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction and stating that to permit this minor irregularity to defeat the district courts jurisdiction would be to elevate form over substance