With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". written consent unambiguously agreeing to removal. See id. at *2, n. 1 (stating that “a majority of courts,..., have taken a strict approach and have held a representation by one defendant in the notice of removal that all defendants have consented to be insufficient, requiring instead that each defendant independently notify the court of its consent.” (internal citations omitted)). See also Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 188, 194 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (stating that “unambiguous written evidence of consent” by all defendants is required.) Defendants contend that the court has discretion to keep the case because this is a non-jurisdictional defect and the Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the delay in filing consent. See Gay v. Carlson, 1990 WL 20172 at *2 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). However, even though a defect in removal

A: holding that amendment of removal petition was properly allowed to correct jurisdictional allegations in removal petition which were defective or faulty due to defendants failure to specifically allege the citizenship of the parties at the time the suit was brought and at the time the removal petition was filed missing allegation was not a fatal omission which could not be cured by amendment
B: 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
C: holding that removal was proper where the petitioning defendant stated that all parties agreed in its notice of removal and the petition was followed by the supplemental consent signed by each of the parties but filed outside the 30 day period
D: holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal
C.