Haseloff-Bunker v. City of Angleton et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
KANDICE HASELOFF-BUNKER,
Plaintiff.
V.
CITY OF ANGLETON, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00024
OPINION AND ORDER
This employment lawsuit was removed from state court based on federal
question jurisdiction. At the initial scheduling conference, it became apparent that
the court’s docket does not include all the documents contained in the state-court
record. A motion filed by Plaintiff in the state court proceedings appears to be
missing from this court’s docket.
When removing a case to federal court, a removing defendant must file “a
copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(a) (emphasis added). It is well established that a removing party’s failure to
file the required state court papers is curable and does not necessitate remand.
See Covington v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 251 F.2d 930, 933 (5th Cir. 1958)
(federal court did not lack jurisdiction because the petition for removal did not
include the records and proceedings of the state court); Collura v. Succession of
James Anthony Collura, Civil Action No. 15-645, 2016 WL 4150032, at *5 (M.D.
La. June 14, 2016) (“To the extent this Court finds that additional pleadings are
necessary to complete the state court record, the federal rules . . . allow this Court
to order additional supplementation. Under these circumstances, the Court
declines to find Anthony’s failure to attach anything more than the Petition . . . a
procedural 	defect 	necessitating 	remand.” 	(cleaned 	up)); James 	J. 	Flanagan
Shipping Corp. v. Mediterranean Shipping Co., 499 F. Supp. 2d 710, 712 (E.D.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00024 Document 19 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Tex. 2007) (“[T]he omission of a copy of the service of process is merely a
procedural error with no impact on jurisdiction. Therefore, the court will allow
Defendants to supplement the removal record.”). Moreover, after removal, the
district court “may require the removing party to file with its clerk copies of all
records and proceedings in such State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Accordingly, I order Defendant City of Angleton to file the entire state-court
record as a supplement to its notice of removal. This will cure any defect in the
removal process. Because this case is a consolidated action consisting of two
separate cases removed from state court, the state-court records from both state-
court proceedings should be filed on this case’s docket.
SIGNED this 	day of March 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00024 Document 19 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2