JANE J. BOYLE, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to the District Court's Orders of Reference, filed January 8, 2002, and February 22, 2002, respectively, the Texas Department of Transportation Individual Defendants' Motion to Remand, filed December 28, 2001, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, filed December 31, 2001, are before this Court for hearing, if necessary, and for recommendation. The Court held a hearing on these motions on Wednesday, February 27, 2002. Having carefully considered the applicable authorities, the pleadings now on file, and the oral arguments of the parties, the Court recommends that the motions be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to the 249th Judicial District Court of Johnson County, Texas, for the reasons set forth on the record and incorporated herein.
In summary, the Court recommends granting the motions to remand on two grounds. First, as set forth on the record and incorporated herein, the Court finds that the Insurance Defendants removed the case after the one year limitation prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). It is not disputed that the action commenced on June 21, 2000, and that the Insurance Defendants removed the action on November 30, 2001. Although the Insurance Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs engaged in forum manipulation and that therefore the one year limitation should not apply under principles of equitable estoppel, the Court finds no basis on which to extend the principles of equitable estoppel to the facts of this case. See, e.g., Rogers v. All American Life Ins. Co, No. 3:97-CV-3084-P, 1998 WL 401599, at *3-4 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 1998). Specifically, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs did not engage in forum manipulation.
Second, as set forth on the record and incorporated herein, the Court finds that the Insurance Defendants waived their right to remove under the terms of the forum selection clause, which was contained in the agreed motion to sever and adopted in the agreed order to sever. The agreed motion to sever states that the severed action is to "remain[J in the 249th District Court" and that "[t]he Insurers . . . stipulate that they will not contest the venue of the newly severed lawsuit." ( Ds' Not. of Removal, Ex. 4 at 3.) The agreed order to sever, furthermore, states that "lit] he Court accepts the stipulation in the motion that venue is proper in Johnson County" and that the severed action will "proceed . . . to final judgment or other disposition in this 249th District Court." ( Id., Ex. 5 at 2-3.) Waiver of the right to remove is analyzed under principles of contract law, and the waiver of removal rights need not be explicit. Waters v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 252 F.3d 796, 797 (5th Cir. 2001). Considering the objective intent of the parties, the Court finds no ambiguity in the terms of the forum selection clause. The terms of the forum selection clause constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver of the Insurance Defendants' right to removal, and there is no other reasonably objective interpretation.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the motions to remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to the 249th Judicial District Court of Johnson County, Texas.