Court finds no reason to depart from its earlier determination in Miller that the FTIA, and by extension the related principle of comity, bar tax sale challenges such as plaintiffs bring here. C. Waiver of a Comity Argument The remaining question is whether defendants waived the protection of the principle of comity by removing this case from Superior Court. Although at least one court has suggested waiver applies in that context, no court has held that a federal court is required to entertain a suit because a comity argument was waived through removal. In fact, most courts have found that a defendant cannot waive the protection of the principle of comity in the state tax arena. Because plaintiffs here originally filed in Superior Court, and beca 114 F.Supp.2d 482, 488 (D.S.C.1999) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Bryan, 1994 WL 721415, at *3
holding that remand is the proper course for handling a case where the factual record is incomplete holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection holding that a remand need not be ordered despite legal errors if remand would be futile holding that remand is proper despite the defendants willingness to waive the principle of comity holding that a remand order entered by a magistrate judge was beyond his statutory authority and concluding that review was proper because the court of appeals was not reviewing the merits of the remand order itself