context: In this case, the Younts have raised a timely objection to the facial defect in Cottrell's notice of removal, and therefore this action must be remanded to state court. See P.P.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 583 F.Supp. 526, 529
citation_a.parenthetical: "A defendant seeking removal must strictly comply with all the statutory requirements, and where there is doubt as to whether the requirements have been satisfied, the case should be remanded."
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Maori v. M & M Contractors, Inc., 897 F.Supp. 381, 384 (N.D.Ind.1995) (“The plaintiff has a right to remand if the defendant did not take the right steps when removing ... and ... a removed matter must be remanded .if there are any defects in the removal procedure.”); Ortiz v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 583 F.Supp. 526, 529 (N.D.Ill.1984) (“A defendant seeking removal must strictly comply with all the statutory requirements, and where there is doubt as to whether the requirements have been satisfied, the case should be remanded.”) (citation omitted).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 685 F.Supp. 683, 686
citation_b.parenthetical: removal was improvident where the removal petition failed to explain why fewer than all defendants sought removal
citation_b.sentence: Farmers’ Elevator Co., 395 F.2d at 548 (remand was required because the removal petition failed to allege that other defendant had not been served in state court: “Although this action was removable, the procedure used to effect removal was defective and plaintiff did not waive the defect.”); Production Stamping Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 829 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D.Wis.1993) (the statutory requirement that the desire of all defendants to join in a removal petition be expressed to the court within thirty days after receipt by a defendant of a copy of an initial pleading containing a removable claim is not jurisdictional and may be waived; however, “the time limitation is mandatory and must be strictly construed.”); Ryals v. Marco Island Partners, 685 F.Supp. 683, 686 (N.D.Ill.1988) (removal was improvident where the removal petition failed to explain why fewer than all defendants sought removal); Fellhauer, 673 F.Supp. at 1449-50 (a removing defendant’s failure to obtain the consent of all defendants to removal was a substantive defect in removal to which a timely objection was raised, requiring remand); Hardesty v. General Foods Corp., 608 F.Supp. 992, 993 (N.D.Ill.1985) (where, on the last day permitted for removal, only two of four co-defendants filed a petition for removal, and there was no affirmative explanation as to the absence of the other co-defendants in the petition, the removal petition was defective and the case required remand).