{"cached_at":"2026-10-04T09:50:17.203600+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68228776","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","id":68228776,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txnd/","court_id":"txnd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1061/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2024-02-06T13:24:04.466874-08:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T17:44:00.330622-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"A. Joe Fish","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-02-08T04:46:01.358724-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-02-06","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2025-09-29","case_name_short":"Liu","case_name":"Liu v. U.S. Department of State","case_name_full":"","slug":"liu-v-us-department-of-state","docket_number":"3:24-cv-00298","docket_number_core":"2400298","docket_number_raw":"3:24-cv-00298","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"G","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"386157","cause":"05:551 Administrative Procedure Act","nature_of_suit":"Immigration: Other Immigration Actions","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-02-06T13:24:04.463398-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/439222826/","id":439222826,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/453745303/","id":453745303,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/27/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2025-09-29T05:17:43.859841-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-26T01:53:27.387110-07:00","sha1":"12aa84466ee6edb20e3d19e130b2f935dbe6ecb9","page_count":13,"file_size":105636,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157.27.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157.27.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27    Filed 09/26/25    Page 1 of 13    PageID 320\n\n\n\n                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                             DALLAS DIVISION\n\n\n\n\nSHIQI LIU,                                 )\n                                           )\n             Plaintiff,                    )\n                                           )              CIVIL ACTION NO.\nVS.                                        )\n                                           )              3:24-CV-0298-G\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                )\nSECURITY, ET AL.,                          )\n                                           )\n             Defendants.                   )\n\n\n\n\n                    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\n      Before the court is the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the plaintiff\u2019s second\n\namended complaint (docket entry 23). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is\n\ngranted.\n\n                                 I. BACKGROUND\n\n      The plaintiff Shiqi Liu (\u201cLiu\u201d) is a Chinese citizen. Second Amended\n\nComplaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under the Administrative Procedure\n\nAct and Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 1 (\u201cComplaint\u201d)\n\n\n\n      1\n             The plaintiff misnumbered the paragraphs of her complaint. Compare,\ne.g., Complaint at 10 (\u00b6\u00b6 72-75) with Complaint at 11 (\u00b6 72, et seq.). Therefore, the\ncourt references page numbers of the complaint.\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G     Document 27     Filed 09/26/25    Page 2 of 13    PageID 321\n\n\n\n(docket entry 22) at 3. The defendants include (1) U.S. Department of Homeland\n\nSecurity (\u201cDHS\u201d), (2) Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of DHS, (3) Ur Mendoza\n\nJaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (\u201cUSCIS\u201d), (4) Laura\n\nB. Zuchowski, Director of USCIS Vermont Service Center, and (5) the United States\n\nof America (collectively, \u201cthe defendants\u201d or \u201cthe government\u201d). Id. at 3-4.\n\n      In 2017, Liu hired Oxbridge Immigration, an immigration agency, to assist her\n\nwith an employment-based green card application. Id. at 5. Oxbridge Immigration\n\n\u201crepresented that they would find a U.S. employer to sponsor Ms. Liu for permanent\n\nresidence under the employment-based, third preference immigrant visa category\n\n(\u2018EB-3 Green Card\u2019).\u201d Id.; see also id. at 6. Oxbridge Immigration assigned \u201cAttorney\n\n[Liyuan] Jiang\u201d (\u201cJiang\u201d) to handle Liu\u2019s case. Id. at 6. Oxbridge Immigration\n\neventually matched Liu with Ruifu Auto USA Inc. (\u201cRuifu Auto USA\u201d). Id. On\n\nbehalf of Liu, Ruifu Auto USA, through Oxbridge Immigration, filed (1) one Form\n\nETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, with the U.S.\n\nDepartment of Labor (\u201cDOL\u201d) in 2019 (certified on May 5, 2019), (2) one Form\n\nI-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, with USCIS in 2019 (approved on\n\nSeptember 26, 2019), and (3) \u201cat least two\u201d Form I-485, Applications to Adjust\n\nStatus, with USCIS (rejected due to improper filing on November 21, 2021, and July\n\n11, 2022). Id.\n\n\n\n\n                                         -2-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G        Document 27   Filed 09/26/25     Page 3 of 13     PageID 322\n\n\n\n      In February of 2022, Liu began working for Performance Architects, Inc.\n\n(\u201cPerformance Architects\u201d). Id. at 5. In June of 2023, USCIS approved a Form\n\nI-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, filed by Performance Architects on\n\nbehalf of Liu. See Form I-797C, Notice of Action, attached to Complaint as Exhibit A.\n\nUSCIS\u2019s decision entitled Liu to classification as an H-1B nonimmigrant worker with\n\na validity period from June 16, 2023, to December 14, 2025, and allowed Liu to\n\nexecute a visa application before a consular officer. Id.; Defendants\u2019 Motion to\n\nDismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support (\u201cMotion\u201d)\n\n(docket entry 23) at 1-2.\n\n      On July 1, 2023, Liu submitted a Form DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa\n\nApplication,2 to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, seeking an H-1B visa, and on July 21,\n\n2023, Liu attended a visa interview with a consular officer at the embassy.\n\nComplaint at 7. The consular officer refused Liu\u2019s application under Immigration\n\nand Nationality Act (\u201cINA\u201d) \u00a7 221(g), 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(g). Motion at 2; see also id.\n\n(\u201cA consular officer, not USCIS, decides whether to issue a visa.\u201d) (citing 8 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 1202(h); 22 C.F.R. \u00a7 41.121(a)).\n\n\n\n\n      2\n               \u201cForm DS-160 is submitted electronically to the Department of State\nwebsite via the Internet. Consular Officers use the information entered on the\nDS-160 to process the visa application and, combined with a personal interview,\ndetermine an applicant\u2019s eligibility for a nonimmigrant visa.\u201d\nhttps://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/forms/ds-1\n60-online-nonimmigrant-visa-application.html (last accessed September 12, 2025).\n\n                                          -3-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27     Filed 09/26/25     Page 4 of 13    PageID 323\n\n\n\n      On March 5, 2024, a special agent with the U.S. State Department\u2019s\n\nDiplomatic Security Service informed Liu\u2019s counsel that Liu was under criminal\n\ninvestigation for alleged immigration fraud related to her EB-3 Green Card\n\napplication and warned that an indictment against Liu was imminent. Complaint at\n\n7; see also id. (The special agent \u201calso informed [Liu\u2019s counsel] that the alleged fraud\n\nstemmed from Ms. Liu\u2019s EB-3 Green Card application, and that was the reason for\n\nthe delay in visa processing.\u201d).3 Liu contends that she unaware that Oxbridge\n\nImmigration was engaged in fraudulent activity. Id. at 6.\n\n      On May 31, 2024, following a request to Liu for a follow-up interview, a\n\nconsular officer from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing reinterviewed Liu. Id. at 7-8. The\n\nofficer questioned Liu regarding \u201cher previous immigration related filings with USCIS\n\nand DOL [and] the extent of her contact and communication with Attorney Jiang,\n\nand the extent of financial transactions with Oxbridge and Attorney Jiang.\u201d Id. at 8;\n\n\n      3\n                On March 19, 2024, an indictment was filed in the United States\nDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York against Jiang and Yu Cao\n(\u201cCao\u201d) for Conspiracy to Commit Immigration Fraud and Aggravated Identity\nTheft. See Complaint at 6-7; see also U.S. v. Jiang, et al., No. 1:24-CR-0158-PKC\n(S.D.N.Y.), Indictment (docket entry 2) \u00b6 2 (\u201cIt was a part and an object of the\nconspiracy that . . . the defendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and\nknowingly did utter, use and attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, and receive\nvisas, . . . and other documents prescribed by statute and regulation for entry into\nand as evidence of authorized stay and employment in the United States, knowing\nthem to be forged, counterfeited, altered, and falsely made, and to have been\nprocured by means of false claims and statements . . . .\u201d). On October 2, 2024, Cao\npleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Immigration Fraud. See U.S. v. Jiang, et al.,\nDocket Sheet. The criminal proceedings against Jiang continue. Id.\n\n                                          -4-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27      Filed 09/26/25     Page 5 of 13     PageID 324\n\n\n\nsee also id. at 7. The consular officer then informed Liu that her visa application\n\nremained refused and that a finding of inadmissibility was entered against her under\n\nINA \u00a7 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for attempting to obtain\n\nadmission to the United States by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material\n\nfact in order to seek to procure a visa.4 Motion at 2; Visa Denial Worksheet, attached\n\nto Complaint as Exhibit B (\u201cThis office regrets to inform you that your visa\n\napplication is refused because you have been found ineligible to receive a visa . . . .\u201d).\n\nAs a result, Liu complains that she \u201chas been permanently banned from [the United\n\nStates] without due process.\u201d Complaint at 2.\n\n       Liu alleges that, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (\u201cAPA\u201d), 5\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 706, the inadmissibility decision \u201cmade by Defendants DHS and USCIS\u201d\n\nwas both \u201carbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence in the\n\nrecord\u201d and made without observance of procedure required by law. Id. at 11-12.\n\nLiu further contends that \u201c[t]he lack of notice and the opportunity to respond to the\n\nallegations against her before the inadmissibility determination was made violated\n\nher rights to due process\u201d under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id.\n\n\n\n\n       4\n             Title 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) provides that a foreign national who\n\u201cby fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought\nto procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the\nUnited States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.\u201d\n\n                                           -5-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G       Document 27      Filed 09/26/25     Page 6 of 13     PageID 325\n\n\n\nat 12-13. Liu seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, the latter including\n\ncosts and attorney\u2019s fees. See id. at 13-14.\n\n       The defendants argue that Liu lacks standing to bring this lawsuit, and that as\n\na result the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Motion at 4-6. Specifically, the\n\ndefendants assert that Liu has suffered no injuries that are fairly traceable to the\n\nchallenged actions of the defendants. Id. at 5-6; see also Defendants\u2019 Reply Brief in\n\nSupport of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint\n\n(\u201cReply\u201d) (docket entry 25) at 1-6. Additionally, the defendants argue that the\n\ndoctrine of consular non-reviewability precludes judicial review over admissibility\n\ndeterminations made by Executive Branch officials, and that Liu failed to state a\n\nviable due process claim. Motion at 7-13; Reply at 6-11.\n\n                                      II. ANALYSIS\n\n                     A. Rule 12(b)(1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction\n\n       Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life\n\nInsurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Owen Equipment and Erection\n\nCompany v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). A federal court may exercise\n\njurisdiction over cases only as expressly provided by the Constitution and laws of the\n\nUnited States. See U.S. CONST. art. III \u00a7\u00a7 1-2; see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.\n\nFederal law gives the federal district courts original jurisdiction over \u201call civil actions\n\narising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.\u201d 28 U.S.C.\n\n\n\n                                            -6-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27       Filed 09/26/25    Page 7 of 13    PageID 326\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1331. Moreover, a party seeking relief in a federal district court bears the burden\n\nof establishing the subject matter jurisdiction of that court. United States v. Hays, 515\n\nU.S. 737, 743 (1995); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Indiana, Inc.,\n\n298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Langley v. Jackson State University, 14 F.3d 1070, 1073 (5th\n\nCir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 (1994).\n\n       Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal\n\nof a case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).\n\nA motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction\n\nmust be considered by the court before any other challenge because \u201cthe court must\n\nfind jurisdiction before determining the validity of a claim.\u201d Moran v. Kingdom of\n\nSaudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted); see also\n\nRuhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Company, 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (\u201cThe requirement\n\nthat jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter . . . is inflexible and without\n\nexception\u201d) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). On a Rule 12(b)(1)\n\nmotion, which \u201cconcerns the court\u2019s \u2018very power to hear the case . . . [,] the trial\n\ncourt is free to weight the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to\n\nhear the case.\u2019\u201d MDPhysicians & Associates, Inc. v. State Board of Insurance, 957 F.2d\n\n178, 181 (5th Cir.) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.), cert.\n\ndenied, 454 U.S. 897 (1981)), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 861 (1992). Once jurisdiction is\n\nchallenged, the burden rests on the party seeking to invoke the court\u2019s jurisdiction to\n\n\n\n                                            -7-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27     Filed 09/26/25    Page 8 of 13    PageID 327\n\n\n\nprove that jurisdiction is proper. Boudreau v. United States, 53 F.3d 81, 82 (5th Cir.\n\n1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1071 (1996).\n\n      Because the question of standing is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, a\n\nparty may contest standing through a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. See Little v.\n\nTexas Attorney General, No. 3:14-CV-3089-D, 2015 WL 5613321, at *2 n.5 (N.D.\n\nTex. Sept. 24, 2015) (Fitzwater, J.) (citations omitted), aff\u2019d sub nom., 655 Fed. Appx.\n\n1027 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). The \u201cirreducible constitutional minimum of\n\nstanding\u201d has three elements, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the\n\nburden of establishing each element. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,\n\n561 (1992)). To establish standing under Article III then, a plaintiff must satisfy, at\n\nminimum, three constitutional requirements: \u201cinjury in fact, a \u2018fairly traceable\u2019\n\ncausal link between that injury and the defendant\u2019s conduct, and the likelihood that\n\nthe injury will be \u2018redressed by a favorable decision.\u2019\u201d Cadle Company v. Neubauer,\n\n562 F.3d 369, 371 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).\n\n      A Rule 12(b)(1) motion on standing grounds can either facially or factually\n\nchallenge the complaint. See Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir.\n\n1981); see also Rapid Tox Screen LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of Texas Inc., No. 3:15-CV-\n\n3632-B, 2017 WL 3658841, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2017) (Boyle, J.). A party\n\nmounts a facial challenge when it files a 12(b)(1) motion without providing evidence.\n\nMacKenzie v. Castro, No. 3:15-CV-0752-D, 2016 WL 3906084, at *2 (N.D. Tex.\n\n\n\n                                          -8-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27      Filed 09/26/25     Page 9 of 13    PageID 328\n\n\n\nJuly 19, 2016) (Fitzwater, J.). A party mounts a factual challenge, by contrast, when\n\nit provides evidence to support its motion to dismiss. Id. In either instance, whether\n\nthe challenge is facial or factual, the burden of proof remains on the party asserting\n\njurisdiction. See id. (quoting Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.\n\n2001) (per curiam), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 960 (2002)). Moreover, while the burden is\n\non the party seeking to invoke the federal court\u2019s subject matter jurisdiction to\n\nestablish the requisite standing requirements, that burden need be met only by a\n\npreponderance of the evidence. See Hartford Insurance Group v. Lou-Con Inc., 293 F.3d\n\n908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).\n\n       In this case, the defendants filed their Rule 12(b)(1) motion but failed to\n\nproduce any additional evidence to transform their challenge from facial to factual.\n\nTherefore, as the Fifth Circuit concluded in Paterson, \u201c[s]ince here we have only a\n\n\u2018facial attack\u2019 and not a \u2018factual attack,\u2019 [the court\u2019s] review is limited to whether the\n\n[Second Amended] [C]omplaint is sufficient to allege the jurisdiction.\u201d Paterson, 644\n\nF.2d at 523. If the allegations in the complaint, presumed true, sufficiently allege a\n\nclaim for relief, then the complaint stands and the court must entertain the suit. See\n\nRapid Tox Screen, 2017 WL 3658841, at *3 (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523); see also\n\nCrowder v. Village of Kaufman, Ltd., 3:09-CV-2181-M, 2010 WL 2710601, at *1 (N.D.\n\nTex. July 7, 2010) (Lynn, J.) (\u201cA 12(b)(1) motion that challenges standing based on\n\n\n\n\n                                           -9-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G      Document 27      Filed 09/26/25    Page 10 of 13     PageID 329\n\n\n\nthe pleadings is considered a facial attack, and the court reviews only the sufficiency\n\nof the allegations in the pleading, presuming them to be true.\u201d).\n\n                                     B. Application\n\n       Under the APA, \u201c[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or\n\nadversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant\n\nstatute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.\u201d 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 702. A \u201cplaintiff has\n\nstanding only if\u201d her injury is \u201cfairly traceable to the defendant\u2019s allegedly unlawful\n\nconduct.\u201d California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659, 668-69 (2021); see also Lujan, 504 U.S.\n\nat 560. The defendants assert that Liu lacks standing as she fails to allege an injury\n\nfairly traceable to any unlawful conduct on their part, and that Liu\u2019s \u201cbare\n\nallegations\u201d are insufficient to establish the requisite traceability, thereby depriving\n\nLiu of standing and this court of jurisdiction. Motion at 5-6; see also id. at 5\n\n(\u201c[T]here is no dispute that a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing \u2013 not\n\nDHS \u2013 refused Liu\u2019s visa application.\u201d) (citing Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 23-24, 44, 46, 49; Visa\n\nDenial Worksheet); Reply at 1-2.\n\n       Liu alleges that \u201c[i]t is Defendants, not the State Department, that have acted\n\nunlawfully.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition to Defendants\u2019 Motion to Dismiss and Brief in\n\nSupport (\u201cResponse\u201d) (docket entry 24) at 10. Liu maintains that she has \u201cendured\n\nsignificant harm due to the Defendants\u2019 unlawful inadmissibility determination[,]\n\nComplaint at 9 (emphasis added), and \u201c[t]he injury at issue is not the visa denial, but\n\n\n\n                                          - 10 -\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G     Document 27     Filed 09/26/25     Page 11 of 13    PageID 330\n\n\n\nDefendants\u2019 unlawful dissemination of derogatory information[,]\u201d Response at 10.\n\nThat is, Liu asserts that the \u201cfraud determination, and the subsequent dissemination\n\nof the derogatory information, are the basis of her injury \u2013 independent of any\n\nconsular decision.\u201d Response at 12; see also id. at 11. Liu contends that DHS and\n\nUSCIS made the finding of inadmissibility \u201cwithin the United States, without notice\n\nor the opportunity to be heard\u201d and seeks judicial review of the \u201cDHS/USCIS\u201d\n\ndecision. See Complaint at 11-12; Response at 12.\n\n      Liu merely speculates, but offers no proof to show, that her \u201cinjuries stem from\n\nDefendants\u2019 dissemination of its inadmissibility finding to federal prosecutors and\n\nthe State Department[.]\u201d Response at 11. Liu hypothesizes that \u201c[s]ometime\n\nbetween May 2019 and July 2024, . . . DHS[], through its agencies and officers\n\n(collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d), determined that . . . Liu[] was inadmissible to the\n\nUnited States based on allegations of immigration fraud. . . . DHS then published\n\nand disseminated the information to other federal agencies, including the\n\nDepartment of State and the Department of Justice. This dissemination resulted in\n\nthe initiation of a criminal investigation against Ms. Liu and the denial of her H-1B\n\nvisa.\u201d Complaint at 1; see also id. at 9 (\u201cUpon information and belief, DHS\n\npublished and disseminated the inadmissibility determination to third-party agencies\n\nand officers, namely the State Department\u2019s Diplomatic Security Service and other\n\nagents within the Department of Justice [which] led to a criminal investigation being\n\n\n\n                                         - 11 -\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G     Document 27     Filed 09/26/25    Page 12 of 13    PageID 331\n\n\n\nopened against Ms. Liu by the Department of Justice and the denial of her visa\n\napplication by a consular officer.\u201d). Liu admits that she \u201cdoes not know which DHS\n\noffice or employee rendered the inadmissibility determination.\u201d Id. at 8.\n\n      On March 18, 2024, Liu filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act\n\n(\u201cFOIA\u201d) with USCIS \u201cto obtain documents and information that may shed light on\n\nher immigration situation.\u201d Id. at 9. Liu simply asserts that while USCIS has\n\nprovided a \u201cportion\u201d of Liu\u2019s immigration file after the filing of her second amended\n\ncomplaint on September 4, 2024, it has not produced documentation related to Liu\u2019s\n\nEB-3 Green Card application.5 Response at 3 n.1. As a result, Liu complains that\n\n\u201cUSCIS\u2019s failure to respond to Ms. Liu\u2019s FOIA request leaves her without access to\n\nthe records that would further substantiate her claims . . . .\u201d Id. at 7. The defendants\n\nargue that \u201c[i]f Liu disagrees with the scope of USCIS\u2019s FOIA production, she has the\n\nright to administratively appeal the FOIA determination, which she has not done.\u201d\n\nReply at 5; see also 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 552(a)(6)(A). The court agrees. Liu has failed to\n\nprovide evidence that she appealed that FOIA determination or sued USCIS under\n\nFOIA, seeking to compel disclosure of all records related to her request.\n\n      Liu argues that \u201cthe Court can reasonably infer that DHS made the\n\nadmissibility determination and disseminated the derogatory information to other\n\n\n\n\n      5\n             Neither Liu\u2019s FOIA request nor documents USCIS produced in response\nto that request are in evidence.\n\n                                         - 12 -\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00298-G     Document 27      Filed 09/26/25     Page 13 of 13    PageID 332\n\n\n\nfederal agencies.\u201d See Response at 6 (emphasis added). Liu, however, has not\n\ndemonstrated an irreducible constitutional minimum of standing as her bare\n\nassertions are insufficient to establish the requisite traceability. As the party with the\n\nburden of proof, Liu has not shown that she has standing to bring this suit, and thus\n\nthat the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because Liu has the\n\nburden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this court has subject\n\nmatter jurisdiction over her claims and has not done so, the court finds that Liu has\n\nnot met the requirements for Article III standing. Accordingly, the government\u2019s\n\nmotion to dismiss Liu\u2019s claims is granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).\n\n                                  III. CONCLUSION\n\n      For the foregoing reasons, the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss for lack of subject\n\nmatter jurisdiction is GRANTED. A judgment of dismissal without prejudice will be\n\nentered separately.\n\n      The plaintiff\u2019s request for leave to amend her complaint is DENIED.\n\n      SO ORDERED.\n\nSeptember 26, 2025.\n\n                                         ___________________________________\n                                         A. JOE FISH\n                                         Senior United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n                                          - 13 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-09-29T08:03:35.687415-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177018024419","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum Opinion and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-09-29T05:17:43.748692-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-26T01:53:27.371881-07:00","date_filed":"2025-09-26","time_filed":"06:44:54","entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-09-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":83,"description":"  Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting    23   Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint,  filed by Laura B Zuchowski, Alejandro  Mayorkas,   US Department of Homeland Security,   United States of America, Ur Mendoza Jaddou.   (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 9/26/2025) (cea)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/439222821/","id":439222821,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/453745298/","id":453745298,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/28/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2025-09-29T05:17:42.962143-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-29T05:17:43.033759-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177018024422","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-09-29T05:17:42.846021-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-29T05:17:42.861233-07:00","date_filed":"2025-09-29","time_filed":"06:47:44","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-09-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":86,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/401262666/","id":401262666,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/410630931/","id":410630931,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/21/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2024-09-04T08:19:52.362880-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-04T08:19:52.369465-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017102141","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-04T08:19:52.341058-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-04T08:19:52.346118-07:00","date_filed":"2024-09-04","time_filed":"09:56:30","entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":65,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/401262626/","id":401262626,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/410630891/","id":410630891,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/22/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2024-09-04T08:19:51.777133-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-04T08:19:51.781165-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017102176","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-04T08:19:51.756774-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-04T08:19:51.761828-07:00","date_filed":"2024-09-04","time_filed":"10:03:34","entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":67,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400304543/","id":400304543,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409534143/","id":409534143,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/19/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:31.747695-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:30:00.893309-07:00","sha1":"033c6536632855f665d1f1e959299af644896313","page_count":14,"file_size":775977,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157.19.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157/gov.uscourts.txnd.386157.19.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Pagel of 14 14.5, HAGEAR 124,\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |...\nFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS | <>\nDALLAS DIVISION |\n\nAUG 23 2024\n\nSPECIAL ORDER NO. 3-354\n\nEffective August 23, 2024, the cases listed on Exhibit A to this order are transferred to\nMagistrate Judge Brian McKay and shall henceforth carry the suffix letters \u201cBW.\u201d Magistrate\nJudge McKay shall seek consent of the parties in these cases to conduct all further proceedings\nand order the entry of final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(c). Ifall parties do not\nconsent, Magistrate Judge McKay shall, unless the assigned district judge otherwise orders,\n\nexercise all powers permitted by 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nAugust 23, 2024\n\nDect (_ wes\n\nDAVID C. GODBEY\nCHIEF JUDGE\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24\n\nPage 2o0f14 PagelD 125\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE RENEE H. TOLIVER TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n1 2:24-CV-0142-BK Hasan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration\n\n2 3:18-CV-1933-N Lexor Manufacturing LLC v. Luraco Ine, et al.\n\n3 3:19-CV-2204-X Retail Ready Career Center inc v. United States of America, et al.\n\n4 3:19-CV-2218-E Southwest Airlines Co v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc\n\n5 3:19-CV-2281-K FTC v. Match Group\n\n6 3:20-CV-0656-K-BK Buzz Photo, et al. v. People's Republic of China, et al.\n\n7 3:20-CV-2935-N Carswell v. Hunt County Texas, et al.\n\n8 3:20-CV-3718-D Samurai Global LLC v. Landmark American Insurance Company\n3:21-CV-0116-B Rainier Arms LLC, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and\n\n9 Explosives, et al.\n\n10 3:21-CV-0840-E TNT Quadrangle Partner, LP, et al. v. SRPF B/Quadrangle Property, LLC, et al.\n\n11 3:21-CV-1764-D Vess v. City of Dallas, et al.\n\n412 3:21-CV-2429-L Raskin, et al. v. Dallas Independent Schoo! District, et al.\n\n13 3:22-CV-0654-N Salt and Light Energy Equipment LLC v. Crigin Bancorp\n\n14 3:22-CV-0663-E United States of America v. All Funds in 199 Bank Accounts Located in India\n\n15 3:22-CV-0780-M State of Texas, et al. v. Biden, et al.\n\n16 3:22-CV-0907-5 Hilltop Holdings Inc v. AlG Specialty Insurance Company\n\n17 3:22-CV-1185-X Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company v. Morgan\n\n18 3:22-CV-1869-E Walsh v. Peterson\n\n19 3:22-CV-2118-X Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barton, et al.\n\n20 3:22-CV-2272-S Thomas v. McDonough, et al.\n\n21 3:22-CV-2597-K Pearson, et al. v. Gage\n\n22 3:22-CV-2624-B Iske v. Precision Dynamics International LLC\n\n23 3:22-CV-2763-E Boy Scouts of America v. Touch A Life Foundation Inc\n\n24 3:22-MC-0079-X-BK NiRB v. LM Carpet\n\n25 3:23-CV-0037-5 Young v. Baylor Scott & White Health\n\n26 3:23-CV-0133-B Endurance American Insurance Company v. Lloyd's Syndicate 3624\n\n27 3:23-CV-0313-S G Thomas Air LLC v. Pratt & Whitney Engine Services Inc\n\n28 3:23-CV-0342-M Ariat International Inc v. Khemchand Handicrafts Limited, et ai.\n\n29 3:23-CV-0464-D Alford v. Wonderland Montessori Academy LLC\n\n30 3:23-CV-0584-G Lee Ir v. United States\n3:23-CV-0640-D M Central Residences Condominium Association Inc v. Technology\n\n31 Insurance Company Inc\n\n32 3:23-CV-0641-L Securities and Exchange Commission v. McKnight\n\n33 3:23-CV-0811-E Alawei v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service\n\n34 3:23-CV-0881-X GS Holistic LCC v. Sri Manakamana Inc\n\n35 3:23-CV-0910-B Brandon Architects Inc v. Olerio Home LLC\n\n36 3:23-CV-0954-X Lopez v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.\n\n37 3:23-CV-0965-X Wilcox v. Equifax Information Services LLC\n\n38 3:23-CV-1171-K Modern Vascular of Southaven LLC, et al. v. Qlarant Integrity Solutions LLC\n\n39 3:23-CV-1198-G White v. American Economy Insurance Company\n\n40 3:23-CV-1351-X $2 Brothers LLC v. AmGuard Insurance Company\n\n41 3:23-CV-1399-G Dill v. Experian Information Solutions Inc\n\n1\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page3o0f14 PagelD 126\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE RENEE H. TOLIVER TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n42 3:23-CV-1457-5 Denison Glass & Mirror Ine v. EFCO LLC\n\n43 3:23-CV-1559-B Fitton v. Pinnacle Propane LLC\n\n44 3:23-CV-1574-E Johnson, et al. v. Dallas County Hospital District, et al.\n\n45 3:23-CV-1583-E Hernandez v. Brown\n\n46 3:23-CV-1663-D-BK Hill v. Norman, et ai.\n\n47 3:23-CV-1698-L-BK Jaffari v. Garland, et al.\n\n48 3:23-CV-1772-B Uliman v. OBM Miami\n\n49 3:23-CV-1915-B-BK Pinson v. Dallas Cnty. Sherriff\u2019s Office, et al.\n\n50 3:23-CV-1918-N Martinez v. Kroger\n3:23-CV-1945-D-BK Thornton v. Dallas County d/b/a Dallas County District Attorney's Office, et\n\n51 al.\n\n52 3:23-CV-2088-L-BK Gordon v. Kellam\n\n53 3:23-CV-2090-N-BK Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security\n\n54 3:23-CV-2094-N-BK Humble v. Enge, et al.\n\n55 3:23-CV-2112-D King v. SeaHarbor Insurance Agency LLC\n\n56 3:23-CV-2162-5 Sealed v. Sealed\n\n57 3:23-CV-2195-X-BK Ashley v. DOL\n\n58 3:23-CV-2212-B Hunter v. Procollect Inc\n\n59 3:23-CV-2231-5 82 Glenwood Avenue LLC v. Schutze, et al.\n\n60 3:23-CV-2385-BK Fernandez v. Social Security Administration\n\n61 3:23-CV-2412-D Beasley v. Castle Credit Co Holdings LLC\n\n62 3:23-CV-2438-N-BK Blanks v, Federal Correctional Institution Seagoville, et al.\n\n63 3:23-CV-2493-K-BK Dickerson v. Conduent Commercial! Solutions LLC\n\n64 3:23-CV-2656-K-BK United States of America v. Rehab 4 Work Services LLC, et al.\n\n65 3:23-CV-2728-B Factor Mutual Insurance Company v. Southwest Pumps LLC, et al.\n\n66 3:24-CV-0013-B SW Marine v. Valentine\n\n67 3:24-CV-0072-E Katz v. Gruenberg, et al.\n\n68 3:24-CV-0104-E Tupac v. Asbury Automotive Group Inc, et al.\n\n69 3:24-CV-0112-E-BK Keys v. Connors et al.\n\n70 3:24-CV-0113-K-BK Smith v. Federai Bureau of Prisons, et al.\n\n71 3:24-CV-0148-B Samiappan v. Su\n\n72 3:24-CV-0244-N Sukin v. Experian Information Soiutions Inc, et al.\n\n73 3:24-CV-0298-G Liu v. U.S. Department of State, et ai.\n\n74 3:24-CV-0376-X Colonna, et al. v. LoanDepot.com LLC\n\n75 3:24-CV-0626-S-BK Alfano v. Allred Unit Mailroom\n\n76 3:24-CV-1060-L-BK Butler v. Lee at al\n\n77 3:24-CV-1063-D Rodriguez v. ALDI Inc\n\n78 3:24-CV-1083-K G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Frida's Tacos LLC, et al.\n\n79 3:24-CV-1089-X Feit Electric Company Inc v. Elong international USA Inc, et al.\n\n80 3:24-CV-1117-K Umoru v. Walmart Stores Texas LLC\n\n81 3:24-CV-1149-X-BK Central States Health and Welfare Fund v. Contreras\n3:24-CV-1151-X Dallas Food & Beverage LLC, et al. v. United States Smail Business\n\n82 Administration, et al.\n\n83 3:24-CV-1245-B Sealed v. Sealed\n\n84 3:24-CV-1367-S Jain, et al. v. Jaddou\n\n85 3:24-CV-1416-G-BK Henderson v. Trump\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page4of14 PagelD 127\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE RENEE H. TOLIVER TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n86 3:24-CV-1422-5 Kearney v. Equifax Information Services LLC\n\n87 3:24-CV-1551-B Zachary v. Environmental Protection Agency\n\n88 3:24-CV-1587-S-BK Henderson v. Trump\n\n89 3:24-CV-1621-G Hamilton v. Walmart Inc\n\n90 3:24-CV-1677-X EYM Pizza of Georgia LLC, et al. v. Pizza Hut LLC, et al.\n\n91 3:24-CV-1705-D Ogboru v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company\n92 3:24-MC-0017-E NFinity IP v. Varsity Spirit\n\n93 4:24-CV-0592-BK Johnson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration\n\n94 5:23-CV-0259-BK Arguello v. Social Security Administration\n\n95 5:23-CV-0281-BK Murphy v. Social Security Administration\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page5of14\n\nPagelD 128\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n1 3:16-cv-00764-N VidStream LLC v. Twitter Inc\nCapio Funding LLC v. Rural/Metro Operating\n2 3:17-cv-02713-X Company LLC et al\n3 3:19-cv-01067-K Von Colditz v. Woods et af\n4 3:20-cv-00045-D Rodriguez v. Southern Health Partners Inc et al\n5 3:20-cv-00313-N Hamilton et al v. Dallas County\n6 3:20-cv-01358-E Coleman et al v. Brozen et al\n7 3:20-cv-03636-K Blue Yonder Group inc v. Kinaxis inc et al\n8 3:21-cv-01498-B Halperin et al v. Wills et al\n9 3:22-cv-00034-X McClung et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC et al\n10 3:22-cv-00141-N-BN Bell v. Moore\nit 3:22-cv-00525-X Fiberco, Inc. v. Acadia Insurance Company\nHighland Capital Management LP et al v. Highland Capital Management Fund\n12 3:22-cv-00789-X Advisors LP\n13 3:22-cv-00794-$ Legacy Exploration LLC v. Optimum Energy Partners LLC et al\n14 3:22-cv-01498-G-BN Timmons v. Director\n45 3:22-cy-01581-G-BN Sharper v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n416 3:22-cv-01600-G-BN Matthews v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n17 3:22-cv-01871-G-BN Turner v. O'Daniel\n18 3:22-cv-02062-X Shuler Drilling Company Inc v. Disiere Partners LLC, et al\n19 3:22-cv-02312-G-BN Mornes v, Director, TDCJ-CID\n20 3:22-cv-02403-N-BN Carey v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n21 3:22-cv-02410-G Castillo v. Walmart Inc et ai\n22 3:22-cv-02589-S-BN Minze v. Director, TOCJ-CID\n23 3:22-cv-02600-X Venzant v. Bigelow Arizona TX-282 LP et al\n24 3:22-cv-02891-N-BN Carcamo v. Director, FDCJ-CID\n25 3:23-cv-00057-K-BN Turner v. Wellpath Med Co\n26 3:23-cv-00066-B-BN Hernandez v. Director, TDCJ-CID\nTrustees of the IBEW-NECA Southwestern Health and Benefit Fund et al v. Rockey\n27 3:23-cv-00224-B Electric Inc\n28 3:23-cv-00280-K Mercury Associates Inc v. Primoris Services Corporation\n29 3:23-cv-00303-N Paige v. State Farm Lloyds\n30 3:23-cv-00337-X-BN Roccaforte v. Transunion\n31 3:23-cv-00338-N-BN Roccaforte v. Experian information Solutions Inc\n32 3:23-cv-00339-E-BN Roccaforte v. Equifax Inc\n33 3:23-cv-00355-X EDN Global Inc et al v. AT&T Mobility Services LUC et al\n34 3:23-cv-G0391-D Walker v. Hoffman et al\n35 3:23-cv-00410-E-BN Lewis v. Equifax\n36 3:23-cv-00435-B-BN Lewis v. Experian\n37 3:23-cv-00508-N Doe v. Backpage.com LLC et al\n38 3:23-cv-00547-K Bilbo v. Central Transport LLC\n39 3:23-cv-00568-B Cunningham v. State Farm Lloyds\n40 3:23-cv-00574-B Martin v. Penske Logistics LLC\n41 3:23-cv-80603-E Bridging Biosciences LLC v, Esch et al\n42 3:23-cv-00668-E-BN Spillman Jr v. Director, TDCI-CID\n43 3:23-cv-00706-E Arka Mesquite Investments LLC et al v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company\n44 3:23-cv-00736-M Powell v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana\n45 3:23-cv-00755-M-BN Toliver v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n46 3:23-cv-00772-E-BN Cloninger v. Director, TDC)-CID\n47 3:23-cv-00819-G White v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page6of14 PagelD 129\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n4g 3:23-cv-00844-M Bellinger v. CureWave Lasers LLC et al\n49 3:23-cv-00852-G New York inn Inc et al v, Associated Industries Insurance Company Inc\n50 3:23-cv-00882-L GS Holistic LLC v. B Over 21 Inc et al\n51 3:23-cv-00915-B SMA v. Salesforce et al\n52 3:23-cv-00948-K Eder v. City of Burleson\n53 3:23-cv-00977-5 Brown v. Sarn\u2019s East Inc\n54 3:23-cv-01016-D Johnson v. Epsilon Data Management LLC\n55 3:23-cv-01018-X Licht v. Ling et al\n56 3:23-cv-01024-L GS Holistic LLC v. OMS Investment LLC et al\n57 3:23-cv-01039-B Jone Doe AS v. Salesforce Inc et a!\n58 3:23-cv-01089-N-BN Rountree v, FedEx Ground Package System Inc\n59 3:23-cv-01228-G Garcia v. Fiesta Mart LLC et al\n60 3:23-cv-01230-B Horton et al v. Heppner et al\n61 3:23-cv-01286-E Warner v. Equifax information Services LLC et ai\n62 3:23-cv-01301-X Dheera Limited Company v. Johnson Controls Inc et ai\n63 3:23-cv-01320-N-BN Silvers v. Director, TOCJ-CIB\n64 3:23-cv-01339-E Terri E Newkirk IRA v. Kelly e\u00a2 al\n65 3:23-cv-01345-L Russell v. Kroger Texas, LP\n66 3:23-cv-01356-L-BN Perez v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al\n6&7 3:23-cv-01366-N Husinger v. Smart Start Real estate Corporation\n68 3:23-cv-01376-X Harris v. Papa Texas LLC\n69 3:23-cv-01468-D Nieves v. Uber Technologies Inc et al\n70 3:23-cv-01484-L Red Barn Candle Company ELC v. Bath & Body Works Brand Management Inc\n7t 3:23-cv-01497-L Rittman v. Amguard Insurance Company\n72 3:23-cv-01502-G-BN Cook v. Costco Wholesale Corporation\n73 3:23-cv-01503-B Charitable DAF Fund LP et al v. Highland Capital Management LP\n74 3:23-cv-01517-N Bahamas Laguna Azure LLC v. City of Royse City, Texas\n75 3:23-cv-01525-X Biovant LLC v. BTEAG LLC et al\n76 3:23-cv-01548-5 Cobbs v. Baylor Scott & White\n77 3:23-cv-01557-D Clark v. Wyndham Worldwide, Inc\n78 3:23-cv-01561-K Erwin et al v. Metalcraft of Mayville Inc\n79 3:23-cv-01565-S-BN Fields v. Kelley\n80 3:23-cv-01617-X Holmes v. Equifax information Services LLC et al\n81 3:23-cv-01621-5 Niter et al v. Brown et al\n82 3:23-cv-01669-B Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n83 3:23-cv-01674-B Brookfield Property Retail Holdings LLC et ai v. Dillard Texas Central LLC\n84 3:23-cv-01675-L Van-Zandt Reiss et al v. The Bank of New York Melon\n&5 3:23-cv-01679-E Harris v. HireRight LLC\n86 3:23-cv-01775-X Palmer v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc\n87 3:23-cv-01791-L SPBL-1119 LLC v. Arciterra Strategic Retail Advisor LLC et al\n8&8 3:23-cv-01793-L LSM Blue Sky LLC v. AT Olathe Outlot 5 LLC et al\n89 3:23-cv-01802-E Megehee v. Pallida LLC\n90 3:23-cv-01805-E McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation et al\n91 3:23-cv-01832-8 Doe v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit et al\n92 3:23-cv-01870-K GS Holistic LLC v. GNS Sons Inc\n93 3:23-cv-01889-S Velis v. Bangert et al\n94 3:23-cv-01910-E Hagans v. Child Care Group\n95 3:23-cv-01912-S Lessig v. Fiesta Mart LLC\n96 3:23-cv-01937-N Kustom Signals Inc v. Applied Concepts Inc\n97 3:23-cv-01972-L Owens v. Dallas Country Club\n98 3:23-cv-01973-K-BN Bohemond v. City of Dallas TX\n99 3:23-cv-01998-B Harland v. Workforce outsource Services Inc\n\n5\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page7of1i4 PagelD 130\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n100 3:23-cv-02009-G-BN Hunsinger v. Atmos Energy Corporation\n101 3:23-cv-02010-B Johnson et al v. Crosby Elementary School et al\n3:23-cv-02011-B\n\n102 Sample v. SLI Enterprises Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02023-B\n\n103 Promed LLC v, Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA\n3:23-cv-02050-X\n\n104 Taste of Chengdu LLC v. Feng\n3:23-cv-G2070-G6\n\n105 Summers v. Longbrake et al\n3:23-cv-02071-E\n\n106 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n3:23-cv-02097-X\n\n107 Holcamb v. Monitronics International\n3:23-cv-02110-B\n\n108 Consumer Data Partners, LP et al v. Agentra LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02126-5\n\n109 Mosure et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Co.\n3:23-cv-02143-N\n\n110 Dillard v. Gaines Investment Trust et al\n3:23-cv-02148-K-BN\n\n411 Booth v. US Bank Trust NA\n3:23-ev-02155-L\n\n412 cici Enterprises LP v. HSB Specialty Insurance Company\n3:23-cv-02158-D\n\n113 Wilson v. Korth Direct Mortgage et al\n3:23-cv-02203-E\n\n114 Warehouse Solutions Inc v. Plus Veterans, LLC\n3:23-cv-02214-$\n\n115 Big Games Management LLC v. Bespoke Piush LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02232-B\n\n116 Campbell v. Methodist Hospitais of Dallas et al\n3:23-cv-02238-E\n\n117 Cameron v. QT South LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02243-E\n\n118 Paez v. Childrens Health System of Texas\n3:23-cv-02284-G\n\n119 Stanley v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC\n3:23-cv-02286-X\n\n120 Brandon Wade Photography LLC v. Killian Design LLC\n3:23-cv-02292-L\n\n121 Lloyd v. Athena Condominiums Co-Owners Association\n3:23-cv-02294-B-BN\n\n422 Andrews v. York et af\n3:23-cv-02307-G\n\n123 Lee v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02367-K\n\n124 City of Dallas v. Triple D Gear, LLC\n3:23-cv-02387-L\n\n125 Nasrallah v. Scottsdale Insurance Company\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page8of14 PagelD 131\n\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n3:23-cv-02404-L\n126 Lilium GVP LLC v. Transportation Insurance Company et al\n3:23-cv-02421-X\n127 Principal Life Insurance Company v. Roque et al\n3:23-cv-02457-B-BN\n428 Young v. United Parcel Service Inc (Ohio)\n3:23-cv-02494-\u00a7\n4129 Hossain v. The Boeing Company\n3:23-cv-02504-K\n130 DAV Sub Inc v. QligSOFT Inc\n3:23-cv-02531-E\n131 Dawson v. Union Pacific Railroad\n3:23-cv-02532-E-BN\n132 Randle v. Brown et al\n3:23-cv-02539-X\n133 Bowers v. Uplift Education\n3:23-cv-02547-E\n134 Session v. Sanofi US Services Inc. et al\n3:23-cv-02594-E\n135 Verna IP Holdings LLC v. Dais Inc\n\n3:23-cv-02624-N\n\n136 Doe v. International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals Foundation Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02633-S\n137 Motton v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC\n3:23-cv-02670-E\n138 Samadian v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company\n3:23-cv-02671-X\n139 APOD Group ELC v. Glen Lakes Homeowners Association Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02673-G\n140 Elliott v. Gonzalez et al\n3:23-cv-02708-B\n144 Dishmon v. Newkirk Logistics Inc\n3:23-cv-02725-D\n142 Pradia v. The City of Rhome et al\n3:23-cv-02737-N\n143 Rollins-Booker v. Senture LLC\n3:23-cv-02770-S\n144 Camacho v. Sajeda Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02795-E\n145 Coil v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02807-K\n146 Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Williams et al\n3:23-cv-02827-G-BN\n447 Moka v. Huntex Properties LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02830-X\n148 Mesa Digital LLC v. One Plus USA Corp\n3:23-cv-02834-E\n149 Canada, Jr. et al v. Sherman\n3:23-cv-02839-E\n150 Accurate Metal Stamping LLC v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company et al\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page9of14 PagelD 132\n\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n3:24-cv-00002-L\n\n151 McLaughlin et al v. Family Assets Management LLC\n3:24-cv-00004-N\n\n152 Hill v. Garcia et af\n3:24-cv-00631-L\n\n153 Great American Insurance v, Truckmax Inc\n3:24-cv-00098-L\n\nLeon Capital Group LEC et al v. Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company\n\n154 et al\n3:24-cv-00122-B\n\n455 Slate/Sefect Inc v. Martin Marietta Materials Inc et al\n3:24-cv-00191-E\n\n156 Crum & Forster Insurance Company v. Shreno Limited\n3:24-cv-00255-E\n\n157 Blacknall v. Allata LLC et al\n3:24-cv-00285-G-BN\n\n158 Davis et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et ai\n3:24-cv-00331-5\n\n159 Tafolla v. Wacker et al\n3:24-cv-00341-S\n\n160 Forsythe et al v. Equifax Information Services LLC et ai\n3:24-cv-00347-K\n\n161 Homesteaders Life Company v. Williams\n3:24-cv-00361-E\n\n162 Kendrick v. QuickTrip Corporation\n3:24-cv-00382-B\n\n463 US Bank National Association v. Malloy\n3:24-cv-00388-E\n\n164 Elioznde v. Randalls Food and Drug LP\n3:24-cv-00417-X\n\n165 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe\n3:24-cv-00434-L\n\n166 G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Aguifar\n3:24-cv-00498-K\n\n167 Highland Employee Retention Assets LLC v. Dondero et al\n3:24-cv-00528-B\n\n168 Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. Doe\n3:24-cv-00544-D-BN\n\n169 Rector v. Director, TDC)-CID\n3:24-cv-00568-N\n\n170 Strong v. Bank of America Corporation et al\n3:24-cv-00569-5\n\ni71 Haag Engineering Co v. Ellis et al\n3:24-cv-00647-L\n\n172 Languasco et al v. Blair Logistics LLC\n3:24-cv-00658-5\n\n173 Gardner v. The Lincoin National Life Insurance Company\n3:24-cv-00691-D\n\n174 Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP\n3:24-ev-00702-L\n\n175 Birrueta v. State Farm Lloyds\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page10o0f14 PagelD 133\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n3:24-cv-00728-X-BN\n\n176 Said v. EAN Holdings LLC et al\n3:24-cv-00791-E\n\n177 Wilson v. British Airways PLC\n3:24-cv-00796-L\n\n178 Sanchez v. Caliber Holdings LLC\n\n179 3:24-cv-00798-E King v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC\n3:24-cv-00809-S\n\n180 Kenney et al v. Dallas County Texas\n3:24-cv-00817-B\n\n181 Children's Health System of Texas v. UnitedHeaithcare Insurance Company\n3:24-cv-00892-B\n\n182 Toombs et al v. Kaufman County, Texas et al\n3:24-cv-00905-E-BN\n\n183 Rass v. Texas Instruments\n3:24-cv-00909-K-BN\n\n184 Bryant v. EverBank NA\n3:24-cv-00971-X\n\n185 Morgan v. Fundamental Clinical And Operational Services LLC\n3:24-cv-01020-X\n\n186 The Shore Firm LLP v. Videoshare LLC\n\n187 3:24-cv-01051-5 Gilliard v. Southwest Airlines Federal Credit Union\n3:24-ev-01075-N\n\n188 Ayangbile et al v. Children's Health Services of Texas\n3:24-cyv-011329-X\n\n189 Ray v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al\n3:24-cv-01175-S-BN\n\n190 Romero et al v. US Bank National Association\n3:24-cv-01198-L\n\n191 Nautilus Hyosung America Inc v. BMO Bank NA et al\n3:24-cv-01209-D\n\n192 American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Southwest Airlines Co\n3:24-cv-01233-5\n\n193 Smith v. Montez et al\n3:24-cv-01262-D\n\n194 Brandon Wade Photography, LLC v. OTC Bar LLC\n3:24-cv-01288-D-BN\n\n195 Williams v. Richardson Independent School District\n3:24-cv-01319-G\n\n196 Daniels-Mock v. Taxir Logistics Inc et al\n3:24-cv-01326-K-BN\n\n197 Wickman v. Navarro County Jail\n3:24-cv-01339-B\n\n198 Travers v. Allstate Vehicle and Property insurance Company\n3:24-cv-01358-E\n\n199 Joe Hand Promotions inc v. Carbajal et at\n3:24-cv-01370-D-BN\n\n200 Council v. Draftkings et al\n3:24-cv-01397-K\n\n201 PacSec3 LLC v. RSA Federal LLC\n3:24-cv-01413-X\n\n202 Guillen et al v. U-Haul Company of Texas et al\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Pagei1i1of14 PagelD 134\n\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n203 3:24-cv-01418-L Wilson v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc.\n3:24-cv-O1447-E\n204 Akhmedov v. TA Operating LLC\n\n3:24-cv-01461-K\n\n205 Moreno et al v. Alan Halperin, In his capacity as Trustee of the GFES Liquidation Trust\n3:24-cv-01479-$\n\n206 NexPoint Real Estate Partners LLC et al v. Highland Capital Management LP\n3:24-cv-01483-G\n\n207 Amazon.com Inc et al v. Baik et al\n3:24-cv-01519-B-BN\n\n208 Robinson-Durham v. Navarro County Jail\n3:24-cv-01531-X\n\n209 Dugaboy Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n3:24-cv-01541-B\n\n210 Sanchez et ai v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al\n3:24-cv-01554-D\n\n211 Hernandez v. Bishop Cider Company LLC et al\n\n3:24-cv-01563-D\nWLands Limited Partnership LP et al v. Founders Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation\n\n212 Partners LLC et al\n\n213 3:24-cv-01603-X Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n214 3:24-cv-01610-E Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n215 3:24-cv-01641-D Elizondo v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n216 3:24-cv-01642-X Aurzada et af v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al\n217 3:24-cv-01646-G-BN Sharman v. H&R Block et al\n\n218 3:24-cv-01647-N Rodriguez v. Home Depot USA inc\n\n219 3:24-cv-01684-L Criss v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc\n220 3:24-cv-01685-G Harris v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n221 3:24-cv-01692-N Ricker v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n222 3:24-cv-01711-D Mitchel v. Pitre et al\n\n223 3:24-cv-01717-K Ayala v. Chedraui USA Inc\n\n224 3:24-cv-01716-L Hutchinson v. Sunrun Inc\n\n225 3:24-cv-01720-K Miller v. Xpress Global Systems LLC\n\n226 S:24-cv-01743-L Collier v. Carter\n\n227 3:24-cv-O1768-5 Bosman v. Amazon.com inc et al\n\n3:24-cv-01786-L\n\n228 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n3:24-cv-01787-L\n\n229 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n\n230 3:24-cv-01796-B Larsen v. Apt All Points Transportation LLC et al\n\n231 3:24-cv-01811-D McAfee v. Lear Corporation\n\n232 3:24-cv-01821-K Ryan LLC v, Radin\n\n233 3:24-cv-01839-E Forstey v. Jordan et al\n\n234 3:24-cv-01873-X Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n235 3:24-cv-01882-X Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n236 3:24-cv-01908-D Hibdon v. Atrium Hospitality LP\n3:24-cv-01912-E\n\n237 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n\n10\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page12o0f14 PagelD 135\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n238 3:24-cv-01949-X Alentisar Trading Company v. Eyondi et al\n239 3:24-cv-01967-S-BN Willtams v. Richardson ISD\n\n41\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page130f14 PagelD 136\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE REBECCA RUTHERFORD\nTO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n1 3:22-cv-02887-L-BT Murphy v. Director\n\n2 3:23-cv-00316-B-BT Marcus v. Director\n\n3 3:23-cv-00978-D-BT Walton v. USA\n\n4 3:23-cv-02449-D-BT Manzo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons\n\n5 3:23-cv-2677-S-BT Jackson v. Smali Business Administration et al\n\n6 3:24-cv-00175-S-BT Gonzales v. Collier\n\n7 3:24-cv-00661-B-BT Hammons v. Tradeline Motorcars et al\n\n8 3:24-cv-00637-S-BT Humes v. McDonald's Walmart #5416-945\n\n9 3:24-cv-01708-X-BT Traeger v. Jones et al\n\n10 3:23-cv-00315-X-BT Duhon v. Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company et al\n\n11 3:23-cv-02194-8-BT Walters v. Garland\n\n12 3:23-cv-02157-L-BT United States of America v. Morgan et al\n3:24-cv-00277-L National Association of Blind Merchants et al v. The Army & Air Force Exchange\n\n13 Service et al\n\n14 3:24-cv-00273-N-BT De Pute v. United States of America et al\n\n15 3:24-cv-00703-B-BT Freeman v. USA et al\n\n16 3:23-cv-01994-S-BT Davis v. City of Mclendon Chisholm et al\n\n17 3:24-cv-00731-L Crenshaw v. Anderson et al\n\n18 3:24-mc-00034-B-BT Calhoun v. United States\n\n19 3:23-cv-02682-5-BT Phoenix Bulk Carriers LLC v. CAL-IXA Aggregates LLC\n\n20 3:24-cv-01590-N-BT Jackson v. United States Postal Service et al\n\n27 3:24-cv-01759-B-BT Woods v. Delta Air Lines inc\n\n22 2:23-cv-00171-BT Row v. Commissioner\n\n23 1:24-cv-00083-BT Gonzales v. Commissioner\n\n24 5:23-cv-00293-BT Mims v. Commissioner\n\n25 3:14-cv-02970-X Clapper et al v. American Realty Investors Inc et al\n\n26 3:20-cv-01276-N Kunze et al v. Baylor Scott & White Health et al\n\n27 3:20-cv-01364-E Malbrew et al v. A+ Charter Schools\n\n28 3:21-cv-02131-K Bernstein v. Maximus Federal Services Inc\n\n29 3:22-cv-00876-N Grimmett et al v. Coleman et al\n\n30 3:22-cv-02116-X Black v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America\n\n31 3:22-cv-02182-M Range! de Oliveira v. Bierman\n\n32 3:22-cv-02184-B Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Vibrant Builders et ai\n\n33 3:23-cv-00271-K Green v. USA\n\n34 3:23-cv-01340-L Perez v. Experian Information Solutions Inc\n\n35 3:23-cv-01412-N Aravamuthan v. US Citizenship & immigration Service et al\n\n36 3:23-cv-01416-B8 Landmark American Insurance Company v. Richland Trace Owners Association Inc\n\n37 3:23-cv-01441-N Thompson v. McGehee et al\n\n38 3:23-cv-01490-S Norwood v. Dallas County Hospital District\n\n39 3:23-cv-01494-N Mathew v. Santander Consumer USA Inc\n\n40 3:23-cv-02051-N Shrestha et al v. USCIS et al\n\n41 3:23-cv-02089-E Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. ACI Payments Inc et al\n\n42 3:22-cv-01529-N Oliver v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC et al\n\n12\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page14o0f14 PagelD 137\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE REBECCA RUTHERFORD\nTO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n43 3:23-cv-00045-E Mauricio et al v. US Postal Service\n\n44 3:23-cv-01168-N-BT United States of America v. $39,900 in US Currency\n45 3:23-cv-02146-D Securities and Exchange Commission v. Verges et al\n\n46 3:23-cv-02222-K Heard et al v. State Farm Lloyds\n\n47 3:23-cv-02591-D Oldham v. State Farm Lloyds\n\n48 3:23-cv-02621-8 Sealed v. Sealed\n\n49 3:23-cv-02701-\u00a3 Pertrorock Mineral Holdings, LLC et al v. Minerva Resources, LLC et al\n50 3:23-cv-02271-S Hayes v. City of Dallas et al\n\n51 3:23-cv-02338-K Smith v. USA\n\n52 3:23-cv-02462-D Botone et al v. Unitrin Safeguard Insurance Company\n\n53 3:24-cv-00014-D Hardrick v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al\n54 3:24-cv-00201-K Ware et al v. Meridian Security Insurance Company\n\n55 3:24-cv-00204-X United States of America v. $45,000.00 in US Currency\n56 3:24-cv-00220-B Bayazeed v. Robinson et al\n\n57 3:24-cv-00664-X VDPP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC\n\n58 3:24-cv-00700-X-BT Garrison v. John Doe et al\n\n59 3:24-cv-00943-E M&H Metal Specialties Inc v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fd\n60 3:24-cv-00944-5 USA v. Various Amounts of Funds Seized\n\n61 3:24-cv-01169-B Nieto v. USA\n\n62 3:24-cv-01484-S5 Antunez-Martinez v. Mayorkas\n\n63 3:24-cv-01525-K Gonzales Miranda et al v. Jaddou\n\n64 3:24-cv-01674-E-BT Turner v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm et al\n65 3:24-cv-01676-S Bibars v. Jaddou et al\n\n66 3:24-cv-01795-S Valtrus Innovations Ltd et al v. Google LLC\n\n67 3:24-cv-01902-K-BT Allen-Straight v. Director-TBC)\n\n68 3:24-cv-02028-X-BT Lockwood v. Chilcoat et al\n\n69 3:24-cv-02114-K-BT Santana v. Cantu et al\n\n70 3:24-cv-02127-X-BT Stancu v. Equal Employment Cppertunity Commission\n71 3:24-cy-02132-S-BT Damm v. Dallas County Jail\n\n72 3:24-cv-02143-B-BT Jalloul v. USA\n\n73 3:24-cv-02144-5-BT Jeffery v. NLN\n\n74 4:24-cv-00678-B8T Bolden v. Commissioner\n\n13\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T17:44:00.231376-07:00","document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017080232","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Reassigning Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:31.722058-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-23T12:23:31.732635-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":"13:20:18","entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":59,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/395917038/","id":395917038,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405041970/","id":405041970,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/16/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2024-07-09T18:08:03.906031-07:00","date_modified":"2024-07-09T18:08:03.970977-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016971095","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-09T18:08:03.877536-07:00","date_modified":"2024-07-09T18:08:03.883619-07:00","date_filed":"2024-07-09","time_filed":"19:55:07","entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-07-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":47,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/393268234/","id":393268234,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/402333230/","id":402333230,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-10T12:21:54.155837-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-10T12:21:54.169897-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-10T12:21:54.143644-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-10T12:21:54.143661-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-10","time_filed":"13:44:42","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/390153053/","id":390153053,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/399090368/","id":399090368,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-05-15T07:22:16.050724-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-15T07:22:16.055949-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-15T07:22:16.037794-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-15T07:22:16.037809-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-15","time_filed":"08:25:31","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384072387/","id":384072387,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392223141/","id":392223141,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-04-09T14:20:00.706936-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-09T14:20:00.710459-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-09T14:20:00.652948-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-09T14:20:00.652957-07:00","date_filed":"2024-04-09","time_filed":"15:35:52","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/377714797/","id":377714797,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68228776/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/385370391/","id":385370391,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68228776/1/liu-v-us-department-of-state/","date_created":"2024-02-06T13:24:04.487927-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-06T13:24:04.490585-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"1","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016602103","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-06T13:24:04.478607-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-06T13:24:04.480393-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-06","time_filed":"15:03:23","entry_number":1,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":6,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=68228776&page_size=40"}