defendants do not sign the removal petition, the petition must set forth a reason for not including all defendants. Moody v. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 753 F.Supp. 198, 200-01 (N.D.Tex.1990) (citing Courtney v. Benedetto, 627 F.Supp. 523, 526 (M.D.La.1986)). In this case, FXC’s claim that all Defendants consented to the removal is not enough to prove joinder by the other Defendants. It was not until September 21, 1995, when FXC filed its Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, that there was anything other than the contention FXC made in its original petition for removal that the other defendants had given consent. This is some 21 days too late. The rules and the case law are perfectly clear on this point. See Samuel v. Langham, 780 F.Supp. 424, 427-8 (N.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Luckett v. Harris Hospital-Fort Worth, 764
holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that assertions of consent of nonjoined defendants contained in a notice of removal does not constitute proper joinder for removal purposes