Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 72, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5982, 6033) (“So long as the defect in removal procedure does not involve a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, there is no reason why either State or Federal courts or the parties, should be subject to the burdens of shuffling a case between two courts that each have subject matter jurisdiction.”). Admittedly, the procedural manner by which this case came to federal court is unorthodox. It is here because the Arndts did not seek to remand the case until four months after it was removed, and only then after the issue was interposed by Magistrate Judge Humphreys. There is no legal principle, however, prohibiting a claimant from accepting an opposing party’s choice of forum. See, e.g., In re Continental Cas. Co., 29 F.3d 292, 294 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, if subject matter 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a party opposing a claim may choose the forum in the absence of objection (B) recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties (C) holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection (D) holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm (E) holding that the question is not whether the party opposing abstention can demonstrate that the federal forum is a better or more convenient forum but whether the inconvenience of the federal forum is so great that this factor points towards abstention
Output (English): holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm