On June 14, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision providing an important reminder: after a case is removed to federal court, make sure your pleadings comply with the federal rules.InL.A. Public Insurance Adjusters Inc. v. Nelson, the company terminated its employee, Nelson, after the company and Nelson had a dispute over commissions. The company filed suit in state court against Nelson seeking damages for disparagement. Nelson answered and removed the case to federal court. Nelson’s answer included a counterclaim for commissions owed to him.The company did not answer Nelson’s counterclaim in federal court. Instead, it relied on a portion of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92: “When a counterclaim or cross-claim is served upon a party who has made an appearance in the action, the party so served, in the absence of a responsive pleading, shall be deemed to have pleaded a general denial of the counterclaim or cross-claim. . . .”The federal rules generally do not require repleading following removal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2) (“After removal, repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it.”). On the other hand, the federal rules generally require parties to respond to allegations made against them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (“An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.”). The federal rules also establish time limits for filing a responsive pleading for defendants “who did not answer before removal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2).Nelson removed the case to federal court in March 2018. At a hearing in February 2019, the court noted the company had not answered th

The petitioner did not present any evidence that he had not been convicted in the five years preceding his arrest. The district court found that under Tex.R.Civ.P. 92 the general denial by the State put the question of convictions at issue, and since the petitioner had not proved he met the statutory conditions, he was not entitled to expunction. See: State v. Herron, 53 S.W.3d 843, 847 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001).Since § 55.01 proceedings are not exceptional cases, the district court is not required to appoint counsel for indigent petitioner trying to work his/her way through these thorny statutory requirements.