Id. at ¶¶ 9-23. Defendant 99$ Only Stores timely removed the state court action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Thereafter, Defendant 99$ Only Stores filed its Motion of Defendant 99$ Only Stores to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Plaintiff filed its Motion to Remand. DISCUSSION The Court will first address Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, as the disposition of the Motion will determine whether or not the Court need address the Motion of Defendant 99$ Only Stores to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is Granted “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, t F.Supp.2d 817, 820 (S.D.W.Va.2002) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, Plaintiff asserts that
holding that remand was necessary where all defendants did not officially and unambiguously consent to removal notice within the mandatory thirtyday statutory time period holding that a failure to specify codefendants consent in notice of removal was a procedural defect not amenable after the thirtyday time for amendment had passed 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 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 a defendants failure to attach process to its notice of removal was not fatal and did not require remand