Robinson et al v. Brazos Valley Council of Governments et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Anthony 	Robinson 	and 	Latoya
Robinson,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Brazos 	Valley 	Council 	of
Governments, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00016
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Anthony Robinson and Latoya Robinson move to remand this
case, alleging that the removing defendants failed to obtain or file Defendants
Linette Bounds’s, Jackie Hampton’s, and Cassandra Karow’s consents to
removal. Dkt. 17. The removing defendants1 (collectively, “BVCOG”) respond
that the record refutes Plaintiffs’ assertion.2 Dkt. 7. The Court agrees.
The removal statute requires that “[a]ll defendants who have been
properly joined and served” to have “join[ed] in or consent[ed] to the removal
1 Those defendants are Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Roger Sheridan,
Harold Womble, Leanne Ray, Lilly Moncivais, Audrey De La Rosa, and Yasmin
Coleman. See Dkt. 7.
2 Although Plaintiff’s motion bears the file-stamped date of January 8, 2026, see
Dkt. 17, it appears on the docket out-of-sequence compared to BVCOG Defendants’
January 9, 2026 response, Dkt. 7.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00016 Document 40 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
of the action.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). 	And here, the record confirms that
the three disputed individuals did, in fact, consent.
As BVCOG correctly notes, see Dkt. 7 at 1-2, their notice of removal
attached consents to removal signed by Linette Bounds, Jackie Hampton, and
Cassandra Karow. 	See Dkt. 1-48 at 2-4 (Exhibit C). 	Nothing more was
required to satisfy Section 1446(b)(2)(A). There is no basis for remand.
Recommendation
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiffs
Anthony Robinson’s and Latoya Robinson’s motion to remand (Dkt. 17) be
DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on March 19, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00016 Document 40 Filed 03/19/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2