With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (S.D.Tex.1981) and Shadley v. Miller, 733 F.Supp. 54, 55 (E.D.Mich. 1990). However, both courts held only that the failure of a co-defendant to join a removal notice within the thirty-day time period was a defect which required remand. Albonetti, 520 F.Supp. at 828; Shadley, 733 F.Supp. at 55. The Tenth Circuit has also recognized that such a failure justifies remand. See Cornwall, 654 F.2d at 686-87. Neither Albonetti nor Shadley addressed the issue of attached process; therefore, plaintiffs reliance on these cases is misplaced. Nevertheless, this court does recognize that some courts have required or upheld remand orders when a defendant failed to attach process to its notice of removal. See, e.g., Andalusia Enters., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 487 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1300 (N.D.Ala.2007) (<HOLDING>); Kisor v. Collins, 338 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1280

A: holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective
B: 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
C: 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
D: 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.