Adams et al v. Augustin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KEISTON ADAMS, et al., 	§
§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3482-D
§
HERODE AUGUSTIN, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
In this removed action arising from a motor vehicle accident, plaintiffs Keiston Adams
(“Adams”) and Victoria Norwood (“Norwood”) move to remand. 	For the reasons that
follow, the court denies the motion.
I
Adams and Norwood filed the instant action in state court against defendants Herode
Augustin (“Augustin”), USA Silk Way, Inc. (“Silk Way”), Zero Max Inc. (“ZMI”), Zero
Max Leasing Corp. (“Zero Max”), and ILoca Services, Inc. (“Iloca”). Plaintiffs served all
defendants except ZMI. Zero Max, Augustin, Silk Way, and Iloca jointly filed an answer in
state court. 	On the day after the answer was filed, Zero Max filed a notice of removal,
removing the case to this court based on diversity of citizenship.
Adams and Norwood move to remand, contending that the notice of removal is
procedurally defective for lack of consent or joinder by defendants Augustin, Silk Way, and
Iloca (collectively, the “Non-Removing Defendants”). Defendants oppose the motion, which
Case 3:25-cv-03482-D Document 19 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

the court is deciding on the briefs, without oral argument.
II
Where, as here, a case is removed solely under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), all defendants
who have been properly joined and served in the state-court action must either join in or
consent to removal within 30 days. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) & (B); see also Getty Oil
Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1262-63 (5th Cir. 1988). This requirement is
referred to as the “rule of unanimity.” 	Powers v. United States, 783 F. 3d 570, 576 (5th Cir.
2015). To satisfy the unanimity requirement, it is not required that each defendant “sign the
original petition for removal, but there must be some timely filed written indication from
each served defendant, or from some person or entity purporting to formally act on its behalf
in this respect and to have authority to do so, that it has actually consented to such action.”
Getty Oil Corp., 841 F.2d at 1262 n.11. 	The failure of all properly joined and served
defendants to join in the removal petition is a procedural, not jurisdictional, defect, and the
removing defendant “bear[s] the burden of establishing compliance with the rule of
unanimity.” 	Breitling v. LNV Corp., 86 F.Supp.3d 564, 570 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (Horan, J.),
rec. adopted, 86 F.Supp.3d 564 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (Lynn, J.).
III
The notice of removal states: “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2), Defendant Zero
Max Leasing Corp obtained consent for removal from Defendants Herode Augustin, USA
Silk Way, Inc., and ILoca Services, Inc.” Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1) at ¶ 21. It was
signed by Edward A. Davis, Esq. (“Davis”), who is the attorney for Zero Max and for the
- 2 -
Case 3:25-cv-03482-D Document 19 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Non-Removing Defendants. Prior to removal, Zero Max and the Non-Removing Defendants
together filed a single answer that indicated in the signature block that Davis represents Zero
Max and the Non-Removing Defendants.
Plaintiffs maintain that the notice of removal does not comply with the rule of
unanimity set out in Getty Oil because the Non-Removing Defendants did not join, sign off
on, or file a separate notice of consent to removal, and because Zero Max did not
unambiguously state that it had been authorized to represent to the court consent to removal
on behalf of the Non-Removing Defendants.
Consent is established, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2), “if the parties share
counsel, the notice of removal contains a statement of consent, and the notice also contains
an indication of the attorney’s authority to bind the consenting party.” 	Garcia v. Lucky
Bros., Inc., 2025 WL 2306845, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2025) (citing cases); see also, e.g.,
Mauldin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 757 Fed. Appx. 304, 309 n.18 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“The
notice of removal states that ‘Defendant Hernandez consents to this removal’ and is signed
by her counsel. 	There is no requirement that [Hernandez] actually sign the petition for
removal.” (citing Getty Oil Corp., 841 F.2d at 1262 n.11)); Malone v. Spence, 2022 WL
22887096, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2022) (Ramirez, J.) (defendant met burden to show
unanimity of consent where “the notice of removal expressly states that [the non-removing
defendant] consented to removal of the action, and it was signed by an attorney identified as
counsel for all three defendants.”).
In this case, it is undisputed that Zero Max and the Non-Removing Defendants share
- 3 -
Case 3:25-cv-03482-D Document 19 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

counsel. 	The notice of removal states that Zero Max obtained consent from the Non-
Removing Defendants, and it is signed by Davis, counsel for the Non-Removing Defendants.
Although the notice of removal did not itself state that Davis had the authority to bind the
Non-Removing Defendants, the attached documents clearly show that he did. 	Prior to
removal, Zero Max and the Non-Removing Defendants filed a joint answer signed by Davis,
and Zero Max attached this document as an exhibit to the notice of removal. 	See, e.g.,
Garcia, 2025 WL 2306845, at *4 (“[B]ecause Defendants filed Original Answers for each
Defendant prior to removal and attached both of the Original Answers to the Notice of
Removal, [plaintiff] knew, at the time of removal and does not contest, that the Defendants
share counsel.”).
Based on these facts, the court concludes that Zero Max has met its burden of
establishing that all defendants who had been properly joined and served in the state-court
action consented to removal within 30 days. Therefore, the case should not be remanded.
* 	* 	*
Accordingly, for the reasons explained, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
SO ORDERED.
February 26, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
- 4 -
Case 3:25-cv-03482-D Document 19 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>