5:00 p.m. in order to be timely. See Director, Workers’ Comp. Div. v. Pompell, No. 03-97-00124-CV, 1997 WL 576470, at *2 (Tex.App.-Austin Sept. 18, 1997, pet. denied). Specifically, the defendant cited Milam v. Miller, which held that the defendant was required to mail his answer before 10:00 a.m., the time at which it would have been due in the clerk’s office. See id. (citing Milam, 891 S.W.2d at 2). The Pampell court explained, however, that while the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require an answer to be filed prior to 10:00 a.m., no such time requirement exists for an original petition. See id. As the court of appeals emphasized, “the date of mailing rather than the time of mailing is pertinent” to timely filing a petition. Id. (emphasis in original); see Flores, 167 S.W.3d at 400 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court rejects Defendants’
holding that amendment of removal petition was properly allowed to correct jurisdictional allegations in removal petition which were defective or faulty due to defendants failure to specifically allege the citizenship of the parties at the time the suit was brought and at the time the removal petition was filed missing allegation was not a fatal omission which could not be cured by amendment holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition holding that even though the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a meaningful injury he was nevertheless entitled to nominal damages for the defendants violation of his first amendment rights holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment