Federal court runs on its own clock.

Removal. A defendant sued in a Texas state court can remove the case to federal court within thirty days after service if it could have been filed there — because it arises under federal law, or because the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in controversy. A defendant sued in its own home state generally cannot remove on diversity alone, and a motion to remand for a defect in the removal has to be filed within thirty days after the notice of removal.

Deadlines. An answer in federal court is generally due twenty-one days after service, and after removal on the schedule Rule 81(c) sets, which can be as short as seven days after the notice of removal. Each district has its own local rules: Rule 7.1 requires a disclosure statement everywhere, and the Northern District, the Southern District and many Eastern District judges also require a certificate of interested persons.

Our federal work includes the defense of a $5.2 million contract action in the Northern District, the defense of a business and its owner against $4.4 million in Medicare fraud allegations in the Western District, and Chapter 11 matters in the Northern District’s bankruptcy court. Federal court in Texas · Northern District · Eastern District · Western District · Southern District · bankruptcy courts.

Northern District of Texas. Local Rule 7.2(f): a brief prepared with generative AI must disclose it on its first page, and a brief without the disclosure certifies that none was used. Judge Boyle in Dallas forbids AI-generated text in any attorney’s filing, allows AI only to identify errors if that use is disclosed and a human attorney makes the edit, and requires a certificate on every filing that a human attorney wrote it, or the filing may be stricken — a summary her chambers confirmed to us as accurate and current on 5 November 2026. Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo requires a certificate with the notice of appearance.

Eastern District of Texas. Local Rule AT-3(m) binds every attorney, and CV-11(g) every civil litigant: generative AI does not replace the lawyer’s independent judgment, and the lawyer must review and verify all content. Judge Crone in Beaumont (Standing Order MC-11) requires a certificate if AI drafted or helped draft a pleading, and Magistrate Judge Love in Tyler requires a certificate with all filings whether or not AI was used.

Western District of Texas. No AI local rule; Rule 11 and the attorney rules govern. Judge Gonzalez in Del Rio requires, if AI was used, naming the tool and certifying verification and that nothing privileged was disclosed.

Southern District of Texas. General Order 2025-04: the signer answers under Rule 11 regardless of whether AI drafted any part of a filing. Some judges add a step — Judge Ganjei in Houston requires a certificate on every motion, response and reply, naming the model, and Judge Olvera in Brownsville a certificate with the scheduling order.

Fifth Circuit. No AI rule, by choice: it proposed a certificate in 2023 and dropped it, warning that using AI is no excuse for an otherwise sanctionable filing.

Checked against each court’s own rules and orders on 5 November 2026 for John Henry’s talk “AI in Modern Litigation” at the Eastern District of Texas Bankruptcy Bench Bar Conference. Rules change; the full reference, with every order cited, is on the AI in litigation page.