served yet councils state failed to remove the docket sheet another glaring error in the removal petition is it failed to list the citizenship of the general partners as well as the limited partners during motion practice they attempted to correct this error but even then when they supplied an the principal place of business of committee hearing was in the state of massachusetts yet in the record the joint appendix page eight it stated that the principal place of business the committee and  i'm sorry what i meant to say was in the affidavit of the paralegal stated the principal place of business was the state of delaware in the removal petition it states paragraph seven page a pet page eight that the principal place of business was the state of massachusetts so they could not enter the other the money york i mean and that's what would defeat the curse of the right none of them yes ronald none of them are me york but they have to they should state correctly so that we know what's going on i did not have an opportunity to refute what the paralegal stated because we just didn't have sufficient time  they also failed in violation of the bright line rule and amount in controversy seventy five thousand dollars was not stated in the complaint there was nonsense but would you be willing to skip  complaint thank you your honor and yet the court did not allow an amendment of the cleanings that was a state court pleading well i mean i think the point is that you didn't avail yourself of as a right  opportunity right i mean you never filed an amended complaint and after the motion to dismiss was granted you didn't even formally ask for the opportunity to met right i did ask for the opportunity to amend your hon right but judge i didn't i didn't realize the case is going to be dismissed if i thought it was going to be dismissed and all right but a motion to dismiss has been made you know that was a possibility certainly judge and i just think that  given how the district court gave various considerations to the defendant it was a reasonable consideration we certainly could have stated a meritorious we certainly had a myriad tauriel complaint  we would have easily sustain the burden of proof under failure to warn defective design manufacturing defect negligence whatsoever that right should have been granted even without oversight and your right judge so there's a thirty day requirements and i wanted you dressed that i mean that's what the other circuits are sort of talk about too much and in this case the opposition to the remand motion was more than thirty days after the r maximum damage against i haven't discussed that with the client so i just don't have an answer the the court obviously i thought you know it's clear that the base of the complaint satisfies the more than  reasonable probability requirement because of the punitive damages which i have to say heard the same thing you heard but even putting aside the punitive damages there was the permanent medical injuries alleged and the permanent loss of earning capacity so it was medical costs and about is twelve thousand minutes presumably the more he says mr taylor now he was thirty four at the surgery and i think that was in two thousand and eight maybe or no two thousand when he's not i don't think he's forty yet so he's young he's quite young so i think you know just on the unanimous consent it's the five circuits to have reached and i think you're correct that none of them have analyzed the issue particularly the way you did except that i do think that persecutes decision goes a your consent to do it and i may just send them sword is there a difference between well actually you know i could i could make the argument that there's a difference and there's  some law that you know talks about how the consent can be shown can one defendant represented on behalf of the others but here you have and append that illustration of consent and you know and i guess you could say that a later yes and i think you mean the courts have said that you can see that as a as a cure of a tenable the fact i would argue that it's not even a defect because the statute doesn't doesn't put the thirty day limit into the statute it's congress the question is whether that can be cured in the same circuits that have all looked at that agree with you that there's a give and was consent requirement but they said it could be done after the notice of removal is filed so i said i think you can require that within the statutory thirty day period if you don't have to do that within the thirty day it's just it's a cure it's that's why it's you know when you have a cat it's basically a care so it's considered as if it was done if you analyze it have any time limit whatsoever in the statute yes i know the language that was just read obviously says with a policy we read them together so we don't do it i don't agree with your you know your reading where you separate the  defect it happens all the time with with complaints and motions and signatures and verification so i'm i just think it's done all the time what is the power of courts to do that whether  sure there was no motion to dismiss for pay or the disservice just because there was no understanding that service had been made that defendant did not join in the removal because there was an assumption that service had been made so as soon as it became clear that the defendant had been served then yes the that defendant then said oh yes of course we consent to removal so it's not like there was a cake and eat it too problem the defendant just didn't think it had been served these are all related defendants and it just so happens that the summons was attached no fault to the plaintiff but the summons was attached to the summons to its different related defendant so i don't think this this court should break with all the other circuits on this unanimous consent acquirement  i'm not sure what purpose would be served by doing that was specially here when you have you know related defendants and a complete cure and that you know all defendants have consented to remove all the point one of the points i would argue with this is the defendant protective thing to make sure the defendants are sort of going behind and other defendants back also it's a court protective procedure and it's a claim to protect a procedure and all those purposes are served here by allowing a cure especially to the  there's no question and i am talking about the merits yes and then describe and this district court bend over backwards there was a whole year and two rounds of briefing in addition to the complaint a brief in opposition a motion for supplemental briefing for the plaintiff to not only their tender an american plane but even putting aside the rule just articulate how the complaint would be amended and there were two fundamental problems with both the design defect series of claims and the failure to warn that both sort of relatedly went to causation at bottom there was never an allegation there still not an allegation in this court how any adequate warning that was allegedly missing would have changed the position of course of treatment and on the design defect there's just no coherence as to what warranty as i understand your argument was that taylor didn't stated design defect claim and so that meant that there was no breach of an implied warranty but when i was looking at it seemed like the element didn't really match up that the design defect had to do with whether he alleged a safer alternative which he didn't do but that's not a requirement for breaching implied warranty is that no you're absolutely correct and the district court gave two reasons for dismissing the design defect one of which would not apply to them by warranty and under new york law that ford motor company case it talks about how the two elements are completely aligned except for certain circumstances here at bottom the implied warranty is a consumer expectations test so to that extent it almost blends with the failure to warrant and there's no allegation here that if the physician didn't get exactly what the physician expected so there's just there what this is still a failure allegation although i