Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): like the defendants here, failed to attach process to its notice of removal. Id. at 1214. In denying remand, the court stated that the failure to attach process was inadvertent and trivial and “did not unduly burden the court or reflect the complete failure to follow the removal procedure that typically leads to remand orders.... Important, also, is the fact that plaintiff has suffered absolutely no prejudice whatsoever from the defect and this defect can be promptly and easily remedied by allowing the defendant to file its proposed amended notice of removal.” Id. Plaintiff argues that this court must remand the case back to state court because defendant failed to attach process. To support this proposition, plaintiff cites Albonetti v. GAF Corp.-Chemical Gp., 520 F.Supp. 8 .Ala.2004) (<HOLDING>); Emp’rs-Shopmens Local 516 Pension Trust v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand (B) holding that 28 usc  1446as requirement of attached process is jurisdictional and defendants failure to attach process precluded removal (C) holding that a defendants failure to attach process to its notice of removal was not fatal and did not require remand (D) holding that failure to include all state court pleadings and process with the notice of removal is procedurally incorrect but is not a jurisdictional defect (E) holding that 28 usc  2401 is a jurisdictional statute of limitations
Output (English): holding that failure to include all state court pleadings and process with the notice of removal is procedurally incorrect but is not a jurisdictional defect