again removed immediately after the diversity-destroying defendant was dismissed. If the Court were to grant remands in cases such as this, the effect would be to encourage plaintiffs to manipulate the removal process.... Accordingly, this Court recognizes an exception to the one (1) year requirement of § 1446(b) in cases where the defendant timely removes only to have a plaintiff later add a diversity-destroying defendant and then dismiss that defendant more than one (1) year after the action was commenced. Id. at 601. This Court notes however that even were it to accept the reasoning of Kite, the holding in Kite would not apply to Defendants here since they never timely removed in the first place. 2 . But see Zogbi v. Federated Dep’t Store, 767 F.Supp. 1037, 1039-40 (C.D.Cal.1991) (<HOLDING>); contra Rashid v. Schenck Constr. Co., Inc.,
holding that the one year limit applies only to removals based on something other than the initial pleading  that is only to removals pursuant to the second paragraph of 28 usc  1446b holding that a writ of summons alone can no longer be the initial pleading that triggers the 30day period for removal under the first paragraph of 28 usc  1446b holding that removal under the second paragraph of  1446b did not apply and defendants therefore had removed outside of the thirty day time period triggered at the time of service of the complaint holding other paper must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal under the second paragraph of section 1446b holding that an initial pleading triggered the thirtyday time limit for removal under  1446b because it sets forth on its face express allegations as to the monetary amount of damages