Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): removal was untimely, and thus, this cause should be remanded to state court. The notice of removal must be filed “within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based ...” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(b) (West Supp.1991). When, as here, removability can be determined from the face of the original state court petition, the thirty day removal period runs from the date the defendant receives the petition. Harding v. Allied Products Corp., 703 F.Supp. 51, 52-53 (W.D.Tenn.1989) (relying on plain language of § 1446(b), which says “receipt by defendant, through service or otherwise ... ”); Uhles v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 715 F.Supp. 297, 298 (C.D.Cal.1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that thirty day period began to run when defendants inhouse counsel received copy of complaint and engaged in settlement negotiations (B) 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 (C) recognizing that while defendants may freely amend their notice of removal within thirty days of service they may not add new grounds for removal after the thirty day period has expired (D) holding that the thirty day time limit was mandatory but not jurisdictional (E) holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability
Output (English): holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability