Midlock v. Apple Vacations W., Inc., 406 F.3d 453, 455 (7th Cir.2005), and Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 530 (7th Cir.2004)). The Court need not decide whether to apply a “first-served defendant” or “last-served defendant” rule in this case. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the timeliness of the removal of this case was not raised in Plaintiffs’ motion for remand and therefore is waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fields v. Jay Henges Enters., Inc., Civil No. 06-323-GPM, 2006 WL 1875457, at *2 (S.D.Ill. June 30, 2006). The Court finds no procedural defect in the removal of this ease. 2. Fraudulent Joinder In this case, Plaintiffs, like Pierce & Associates, are Illinois citizens, while U.S. Bank is an Ohio citizen. See Firstar Bank, N.A. v. Faul, 253 F.3d 982, 994 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, complete diversity of citizenship is
holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center holding that wells fargo is also a citizen of california where it has its principal place of business holding that a national bank is a citizen of the state in which its main office as set forth in its articles of association is located holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is  a citizen of  the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate