Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): reference to service of process, a diverse defendant could effectively create federal jurisdiction by removing prior to service on a nondiverse co-defendant. Thus, rejection of the notion that service is determinative of diversity "avoids any potential expansion of the court's jurisdiction beyond the clear mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Id. 3 . See also In re Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc., 184 F.Supp.2d 826, 828 (S.D.Ind.2002) (in case where complete diversity clearly existed, court held that "[sjection 1441(b) would have precluded removal ..only if [resident of forum state] had been properly served, and [since] it had not been served at the time Ford filed the removal petition,” case was removable); Maple Leaf Bakery v. Raychem Corp., No. 99 C 6948, 1999 WL 1101326, at *1 (N.D.Ill.1999) (<HOLDING>); Recognition Communications, Inc. v. American 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties (B) holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective (C) holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served (D) holding that the plain language of section 1441b indicates that an action may be removed unless a properly joined and served defendant is a resident of the state in which the action was initiated and reiterating that the plain language of  1441b particularly in light of the 1948 amendment inserting the language and served precludes removal on the basis of the presence of resident defendants only when those defendants were properly joined and served at the time of removal (E) holding that the absence in the notice of removal of copies of the summonses served on the defendants uncorrected until after the thirty 30 day removal period had expired violates 28 usc  1446a and bars removal
Output (English): holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective