{"cached_at":"2026-10-24T10:43:31.946469+00:00","cl_docket_id":"67679823","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","id":67679823,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txnd/","court_id":"txnd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10205521/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/352/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-08-09T14:23:58.191678-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T17:43:54.311983-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jane J Boyle","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2023-08-16T03:49:57.368274-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-08-09","date_terminated":"2024-08-28","date_last_filing":"2024-08-28","case_name_short":"Ullman","case_name":"Ullman v. OBM Miami Inc","case_name_full":"","slug":"ullman-v-obm-miami-inc","docket_number":"3:23-cv-01772","docket_number_core":"2301772","docket_number_raw":"3:23-cv-01772","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"B","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"380020","cause":"28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract","nature_of_suit":"Contract: Other Contract","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":"2023-08-09T14:23:58.189802-07:00","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/400304636/","id":400304636,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409534235/","id":409534235,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/35/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:33.839911-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:35:30.135994-07:00","sha1":"033c6536632855f665d1f1e959299af644896313","page_count":14,"file_size":775977,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020.35.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020.35.0.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":"2026-08-31T17:43:54.242593-07:00","document_number":"35","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":"2024-08-23T12:23:33.821154-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-23T12:23:33.824943-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":"13:20:18","entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":99,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/393476322/","id":393476322,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/402546178/","id":402546178,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/33/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2024-06-12T10:10:26.485380-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-15T21:46:05.835837-08:00","sha1":"33a84d34fbce46c792810191f30c367171640b1b","page_count":9,"file_size":143841,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020/gov.uscourts.txnd.380020.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"      Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                  Page 1 of 9 PageID 254\n\n\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                   DALLAS DIVISION\n\n ERIC D. ULLMANN,                                  \u00a7\n                                                   \u00a7\n      Plaintiff,                                   \u00a7\n                                                   \u00a7\n v.                                                \u00a7    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-1772-B\n                                                   \u00a7\n OBMI MIAMI, INC.,                                 \u00a7\n                                                   \u00a7\n      Defendant.                                   \u00a7\n\n\n                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\n         Before the Court is Plaintiff Eric D. Ullmann\u2019s Renewed Motion to Strike or, Alternatively,\n\nDismiss Defendant\u2019s Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 22). For the following reasons, the Court\n\nGRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Ullmann\u2019s Motion (Doc. 22).                               The Court\n\nSTRIKES Defendant OBMI Miami, Inc. (\u201cOBMI\u201d)\u2019s First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,\n\nSeventh, Eighth, and Tenth affirmative defenses listed in its Answer (Doc. 16) WITHOUT\n\nPREJUDICE.\n\n                                                   I.\n\n                                          BACKGROUND\n\n         This is an employment case. Ullmann worked for OBMI for nearly two-and-a-half years \u201cas\n\na Principal and as a member of the OBMI Board of Directors.\u201d Doc. 10-1, Ex. A, 1; see Doc. 10,\n\nAm. Compl., \u00b6 8.1 According to Ullmann, he is entitled to an equity stake in OBMI under the\n\n\n         1\n         The Court granted Ullmann leave to file an amended complaint on September 12, 2024. Doc. 11,\nOrder. In the Order granting leave, the Court directed the Clerk to enter Ullmann\u2019s amended complaint\n(which was attached to his Motion). Id.; see Doc. 10, Mot. Leave, 3\u201316. The Clerk entered Document 12\nas Ullmann\u2019s Amended Complaint. See Doc. 12. However, it appears that the Clerk filed an exhibit attached\nto Ullmann\u2019s pleading as the \u201camended complaint,\u201d rather than the proposed amended complaint attached\n\n                                                  -1-\n\f   Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                  Page 2 of 9 PageID 255\n\n\n\nterms of his employment contract. Doc. 10, Am. Compl., \u00b6\u00b6 20\u201324. However, Ullmann claims\n\nthat OBMI failed to grant him the promised equity and thus initiated the present litigation. See\n\ngenerally Doc. 1-2, Original Pet., 9\u201314.\n\n        Ullmann\u2019s operative complaint was filed on September 12, 2023. See Doc. 10, Mot Am.;\n\nDoc. 11, Order. He brings claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraudulent\n\ninducement, fraud, and fraudulent concealment against OBMI. See Doc. 10, Am. Compl., \u00b6\u00b6 15\u2013\n\n38. OBMI answered on September 26, 2024. Doc. 16, Answer. OBMI\u2019s Answer asserts the\n\nfollowing affirmative defenses:\n\n        1. Plaintiff\u2019s Amended Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon\n            which relief can be granted.\n        2. Plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver,\n            laches, fraud, and/or estoppel.\n        3. Plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in whole or part, by failing to satisfy conditions\n            precedent.\n        4. Plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of accord and\n            satisfaction.\n        5. Plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean\n            hands.\n        6. Defendant specifically invoke all statutory limitations of liability applicable to\n            any and all asserted causes of action in this case.\n        7. To the extent Plaintiff was damaged at all, such damages were proximately\n            caused in whole or in part by the conduct or fault of persons or entities other\n            than Defendant.\n        8. Plaintiff failed to mitigate or failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his\n            alleged damages, if any.\n        9. Defendant claims its entitlement to recover attorneys\u2019 fees and costs of suit.\n        10. Defendant pleads all limitations on an award or the amount of exemplary or\n            liquidated damages.\n        11. In addition to the foregoing defenses, Defendant reserves the right to assert any\n            other defenses as they may become apparent during the course of discovery in\n            this case.\n\nId. at 6\u20137.\n\n\n\nto Ullmann\u2019s Motion for Leave. See Doc. 10, Mot. Leave, 4\u201316. Thus, the full amended complaint can be\nfound in Document 10, which is Ullmann\u2019s initial Motion for leave. See id.\n\n                                                -2-\n\f   Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                    Page 3 of 9 PageID 256\n\n\n\n       On October 10, 2023, Ullmann moved to strike each affirmative defense contained in\n\nOBMI\u2019s Answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Doc. 22, Mot., 3\u20137. Ullmann\u2019s\n\nMotion is briefed and ripe for review. The Court considers it below.\n\n                                                  II.\n\n                                       LEGAL STANDARD\n\n       Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a \u201ccourt may strike from a pleading an\n\ninsufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.\u201d Although\n\nmotions to strike a defense are generally disfavored, a Rule 12(f) motion to dismiss a defense is\n\nproper when the defense is insufficient as a matter of law. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc.\n\nv. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057\u201358 (5th Cir. 1982). \u201cTo find that a defense is\n\ninsufficient as a matter of law, the court considers whether the defense is applicable to the case and\n\nwhether the pleadings give plaintiff fair notice of the defense.\u201d Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,\n\nInc., No. 5:22-CV-53-RWS-JBB, 2023 WL 9065490, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2023), report and\n\nrecommendation adopted, No. 5:22-CV-53-RWS-JBB, 2024 WL 38274 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2024).\n\n       \u201cAn affirmative defense is subject to the same pleading requirements as is the complaint.\u201d\n\nWoodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354, 362 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, an affirmative defense need only\n\nrecite a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. FED.\n\nR. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). A defendant must plead an affirmative defense with enough specificity or factual\n\nparticularity to give the plaintiff \u201cfair notice.\u201d Woodfield, 193 F.3d at 362. It is unclear whether the\n\nplausibility standard for pleading, expressed in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)\n\nand Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), extends to the pleading of affirmative defenses. The\n\nFifth Circuit has not addressed this issue. In the absence of guidance from the Fifth Circuit or\n\nSupreme Court, the court will apply the standard from Woodfield. See E.E.O.C. v. Courtesy Bldg.\n                                                 -3-\n\f     Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                   Page 4 of 9 PageID 257\n\n\n\nServs., Inc., No. 3:10-CV-1911-D, 2011 WL 208408, at *1\u20133 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2011) (Fitzwater,\n\nJ.) (applying the Woodfield standard in absence of guidance from Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court\n\non applying Twombly and Iqbal standard to affirmative defenses); Republic Title of Texas, Inc. v. First\n\nRepublic Title, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-3848-B, 2015 WL 1914635, at *1\u20132 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2015)\n\n(Boyle, J.) (same); CarrollClean LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-01359-N, 2022 WL\n\n598243, at *2\u20133 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2022) (Godbey, C.J.) (same). Under Woodfield, the \u201cfair\n\nnotice\u201d pleading requirement is met if the defendant \u201csufficiently articulated the defense so that\n\nthe plaintiff was not a victim of unfair surprise.\u201d 193 F.3d at 362.\n\n                                                 III.\n\n                                            ANALYSIS\n\n        Of OBMI\u2019s eleven affirmative defenses, all but two are deficient. Specifically, OBMI\u2019s\n\npleadings fail to give fair notice with respect to affirmative defenses One, Two, Three, Four, Five,\n\nSix, Eight, and Ten. And while affirmative defense Seven is sufficiently specific, it is nevertheless\n\nredundant. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). On the other hand, affirmative defenses Nine and Eleven give\n\nUllmann fair notice of OBMI\u2019s claimed rights.\n\nA.      Affirmative Defenses One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Eight, and Ten\n\n        OBMI\u2019s Answer fails to give Ullmann fair notice of affirmative defenses One, Two, Three,\n\nFour, Five, Six, Eight, and Ten.\n\n        To begin, the allegations pertaining to affirmative defenses One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and\n\nEight mirror those which were raised and ultimately struck in Pem-Air Turbine Engine Servs. LLC\n\nv. Gupta, No. 3:21-CV-00180-L, 2022 WL 2835840, at *5 (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2022) (Lindsay, J.).\n\nThe Court provides the following table for ease of comparison:\n\n\n\n                                                 -4-\n\f     Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                         Page 5 of 9 PageID 258\n\n\n\nPem-Air Turbine2                                           OBMI\u2019s Answer\n\n\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which Affirmative Defense #1: \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Amended\nrelief can be granted.\u201d                                  Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon\n                                                         which relief can be granted.\u201d\n\n\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Affirmative Defense #2: \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in\ndoctrines of laches, waiver, justification, and/or whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, laches, fraud,\nestoppel.\u201d                                                  and/or estoppel.\u201d\n\n\u201cDefendant pleads the affirmative defense of accord Affirmative Defense #4: \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in\nand satisfaction.\u201d                                  whole or in part, by the doctrine of accord and\n                                                    satisfaction.\u201d\n\n\u201cSome or all of Plaintiff\u2019s claims must be dismissed due Affirmative Defense #5: \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in\nto . . . unclean hands.\u201d                                 whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.\u201d\n\n\u201cSome or all of Plaintiff\u2019s claims may be barred by the Affirmative Defense #6: \u201cDefendant specifically\napplicable statute(s) of limitations.\u201d                  invoke[s] all statutory limitations of liability applicable\n                                                        to any and all asserted causes of action in this case.\u201d\n\n\u201cPlaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if there are Affirmative Defense #8: \u201cPlaintiff failed to mitigate or\nany damages.\u201d                                               failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his alleged\n                                                            damages, if any.\u201d\n\n\n          In Pem-Air Turbine, the court struck the affirmative defenses listed in the left-hand column\n\n above, explaining \u201cthat they fall short of the minimum particulars and fail to provide enough\n\n information to alert [plaintiff] to what the alleged problem is as to prevent unfair surprise.\u201d Id.\n\n Given that OBMI\u2019s affirmative defenses are alleged in nearly identical terms, the Court reaches\n\n the same conclusion with respect to affirmative defenses One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Eight.\n\n          OBMI\u2019s third and tenth affirmative defenses fail to satisfy Woodfield for similar reasons.\n\n Affirmative defense Three states: \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s claims are barred, in whole or part, by failing to satisfy\n\n conditions precedent.\u201d Doc. 16, Answer, 6. Without identifying the specific conditions precedent\n\n\n\n\n          2\n              Pem-Air Turbine, 2022 WL 2835840, at *2\u20133.\n\n                                                       -5-\n\f     Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                     Page 6 of 9 PageID 259\n\n\n\nthat Ullmann failed to satisfy, however, Ullmann cannot be said to have fair notice of this defense.3\n\nMcNeely v. Trans Union LLC, No. CV H-18-849, 2019 WL 338127, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 28,\n\n2019). Similarly, OBMI\u2019s tenth affirmative defense is merely that OBMI \u201cpleads all limitations on\n\nan award or the amount of exemplary or liquidated damages.\u201d Doc. 16, Answer, 6. Pleading \u201call\n\nlimitations on an award\u201d is like pleading \u201call affirmative defenses on a claim.\u201d Both are clearly\n\ninsufficient under Woodfield. Absent any indication as to the specific limitations that OBMI is\n\ncontemplating with this allegation, Ullmann can only guess what OBMI\u2019s position is\u2014this is not\n\nfair notice. Cf. Blount v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 146, 152 (S.D. Miss. 2018).\n\n        In sum, affirmative defenses One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Eight, and Ten are\n\ninadequately alleged under Woodfield. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES these affirmative\n\ndefenses.\n\nB.      Affirmative Defense Seven\n\n        OBMI\u2019s seventh defense fails for a different reason: it is repetitive of other portions of\n\nOBMI\u2019s Answer. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) (\u201cThe court may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant\n\n. . . matter.\u201d). OBMI\u2019s seventh defense is that it did not cause Ullmann\u2019s damages. Doc. 16, Answer,\n\n6 (\u201cTo the extent Plaintiff was damaged at all, such damages were proximately caused in whole or\n\nin part by the conduct or fault of persons or entities other than Defendant.\u201d). Affirmative defense\n\nSeven is more appropriately labeled a \u201cnegative defense,\u201d meaning it merely tends to disprove an\n\nelement of Ullmann\u2019s claims. See F.T.C. v. Think All Pub. L.L.C., 564 F. Supp. 2d 663, 665 (E.D.\n\n\n        3\n          The Court also notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(c) requires that, \u201cwhen denying that\na condition precedent has occurred or been performed, a party must do so with particularity.\u201d FED. R. CIV.\nP. 9(c); see also CarrollClean LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-01359-N, 2022 WL 598243, at *4\n(N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2022) (Godbey, J.) (explaining that Rule 9(c) applies to pleading affirmative defenses).\nMerely asserting that conditions precedent went unsatisfied falls far short of the particularity required by\nRule 9(c).\n\n                                                   -6-\n\f     Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                   Page 7 of 9 PageID 260\n\n\n\nTex. 2008). Indeed, for each cause of action asserted against OBMI, Ullmann alleged that OBMI\n\ncaused his injuries. Doc. 10, Am. Compl., \u00b6\u00b6 16, 23, 25, 33, 35\u201336, 38. OBMI had already denied\n\neach one of these allegations in its Answer before asserting affirmative defense Seven. Doc. 16,\n\nAnswer, 2\u20134. OBMI\u2019s seventh affirmative defense is thus repetitive. See Think All Pub., 564 F.\n\nSupp. 2d at 665\u201366. Therefore, the Court STRIKES this defense.\n\nC.      Affirmative Defenses Nine and Eleven\n\n        Affirmative defenses Nine and Eleven are not defenses, although they are labeled as such.\n\nAffirmative defense Nine is OBMI\u2019s claimed entitlement to attorneys\u2019 fees, and Eleven is OBMI\u2019s\n\nreservation of the right to assert additional defenses at a later point. Id. at 6\u20137, \u00b6\u00b6 9, 11. The Court\n\nsees no basis to strike either defense.\n\n        OBMI\u2019s ninth affirmative defense states \u201c[OBMI] claims its entitlement to recover\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees and costs of suit.\u201d Id. at 6. Ullmann argues that this defense should be struck because\n\nit fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements under Woodfield and because a claim to\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees does not constitute an affirmative defense. See Doc. 22, Mot., 5\u20137. The Court\n\ndisagrees that this defense should be struck. First, because a claim to attorneys\u2019 fees is not a defense,\n\nWoodfield does not govern. See 193 F.3d at 362. Indeed, in some cases, a party need not even plead\n\na right to attorneys\u2019 fees to recover the same, let alone do so with a certain degree of specificity.\n\nSee Solferini as Tr. of Corradi S.p.A. v. Corradi USA, Inc., No. 20-40645, 2021 WL 3619905, at *3\n\n(5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). Second, that OBMI may have mislabeled its claim to attorneys\u2019 fee as a\n\ndefense provides no basis for striking the allegation. While Ullmann cites cases striking mislabeled\n\naffirmative defenses, those cases did not do so because said defense was mislabeled. See e.g.,\n\nInsuremax Ins. Agencies, Inc. v. Shanze Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-1231-M, 2013 WL 4014476,\n\nat *6 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2013) (Lynn, J.) (striking defenses mislabeled as affirmative defenses\n                                                  -7-\n\f   Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                   Page 8 of 9 PageID 261\n\n\n\nbecause they were repetitive). Regardless, in the Court\u2019s view, it would be overly formalistic to\n\nstrike a portion of the pleading solely because it was mislabeled.\n\n          Ullmann argues that OBMI\u2019s eleventh defense should be struck for similar reasons. See Doc.\n\n22, Mot., 5\u20137. OBMI\u2019s eleventh defense is that it \u201creserves the right to assert any other defenses\n\nas they may become apparent during the course of discovery in this case.\u201d Id. at 6, \u00b6 9. The Court\n\ndeclines to strike this defense for reasons articulated by the Eastern District of Texas in Mosser v.\n\nAetna Life Ins. Co.:\n\n          While the Court does not necessarily endorse [Defendant\u2019s] attempt to reserve the\n          right to assert additional defenses in the future, a reservation of rights within an\n          answer is essentially meaningless and does not prejudice Plaintiff in any way; nor\n          does it confer on Defendant a right to amend without the Court\u2019s approval.\n          Accordingly, it is not necessary to strike Defendant\u2019s reservation of the right to\n          assert additional affirmative defenses.\n\nNo. 4:15-CV-00430-ALM-KPJ, 2018 WL 3301808, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2018), report and\n\nrecommendation adopted, No. 4:15-CV-00430, 2018 WL 1517032 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2018).\n\n          Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ullmann\u2019s Motion to Strike affirmative defenses Nine and\n\nEleven.\n\n                                                  IV.\n\n                                           CONCLUSION\n\n          For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Ullmann\u2019s\n\nMotion to Strike (Doc. 22). The Court STRIKES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the following\n\naffirmative defenses in OBMI\u2019s Answer: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Ten.\n\nThe Court DENIES Ullmann\u2019s Motion with respect to affirmative defenses Nine and Eleven. The\n\nCourt further ORDERS that OBMI, if it wishes to replead its affirmative defenses in accordance\n\nwith the Woodfield standard, file an amended answer within twenty-one (21) days of this Order.\n\n\n                                                  -8-\n\f   Case 3:23-cv-01772-B Document 33 Filed 06/12/24                 Page 9 of 9 PageID 262\n\n\n\nOBMI\u2019s repleading, if any, must be limited to its previous affirmative defenses. Stated another way,\n\nOBMI cannot plead new affirmative defenses; instead, OBMI may only replead its previously\n\nasserted affirmative defenses with enough factual particularity to give Ullmann fair notice. If\n\nUllmann wishes to file a second motion to strike, it must do so within fourteen (14) days of OBMI\u2019s\n\namended filing.\n\n       SO ORDERED.\n\n       SIGNED: June 12, 2024.\n\n\n\n                                              JANE J. BOYLE\n                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                                -9-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-06-17T01:18:53.854595-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016910050","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum Opinion and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-12T10:10:26.446835-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-15T21:46:05.819406-08:00","date_filed":"2024-06-12","time_filed":"11:32:33","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":93,"description":"  Memorandum Opinion and Order: Before the Court is Plaintiff Eric D. Ullmann's  Renewed Motion to Strike or, Alternatively, Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative  Defenses (Doc.  22 ). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and  DENI ES IN PART Ullmann's Motion (Doc. 22). The Court STRIKES Defendant OBMI  Miami, Inc. (\"OBMI\")'s First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,  Eighth, and Tenth affirmative defenses listed in its Answer (Doc.  16 ) WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.   (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 6/12/2024) (ndt)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/392604085/","id":392604085,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/401651836/","id":401651836,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/32/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2024-06-03T13:20:32.524891-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-03T13:20:32.550082-07:00","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":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016887149","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-03T13:20:32.434218-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-03T13:20:32.447925-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-03","time_filed":"15:12:57","entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":91,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384829117/","id":384829117,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/393073203/","id":393073203,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-04-16T11:19:36.479428-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-16T11:19:36.484103-07:00","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","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-16T11:19:36.471086-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-16T11:19:36.471098-07:00","date_filed":"2024-04-16","time_filed":"13:17:09","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/367588845/","id":367588845,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/374871848/","id":374871848,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-10-11T08:24:01.882271-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-11T08:24:01.884427-07:00","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 to Strike","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-11T08:24:01.875912-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-11T08:24:01.875923-07:00","date_filed":"2023-10-11","time_filed":"10:05:12","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-10-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/367572355/","id":367572355,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/374855165/","id":374855165,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/23/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-10-11T06:22:08.441355-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-11T06:22:08.444395-07:00","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":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016334531","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order For ADR","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-11T06:22:08.429468-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-11T06:22:08.432705-07:00","date_filed":"2023-10-11","time_filed":"07:54:41","entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-10-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":64,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/367522627/","id":367522627,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/374804773/","id":374804773,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-10-10T13:23:47.590045-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-10T13:23:47.593036-07:00","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 to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-10T13:23:47.582409-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-10T13:23:47.582424-07:00","date_filed":"2023-10-10","time_filed":"14:24:30","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-10-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/365909643/","id":365909643,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/372832795/","id":372832795,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/16/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-09-26T13:23:25.432049-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-26T13:23:25.434093-07:00","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":"177016304012","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-09-26T13:23:25.422982-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-26T13:23:25.424986-07:00","date_filed":"2023-09-26","time_filed":"14:21:30","entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-09-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":45,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/364699593/","id":364699593,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/371565429/","id":371565429,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/12/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-09-13T08:23:03.272437-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-14T07:21:44.725695-07:00","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":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016274156","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-09-13T08:23:03.264764-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-14T07:21:44.719496-07:00","date_filed":"2023-09-13","time_filed":"10:01:10","entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-09-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":34,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/364585008/","id":364585008,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/371440928/","id":371440928,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-09-12T09:23:00.053338-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-13T08:23:13.889798-07:00","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 Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-09-12T09:23:00.048553-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-13T08:23:13.883431-07:00","date_filed":"2023-09-12","time_filed":"11:16:57","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-09-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/364069353/","id":364069353,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/370887270/","id":370887270,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/9/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-09-06T15:27:31.747114-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-07T14:22:40.508628-07:00","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":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016260266","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-09-06T15:27:31.740345-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-07T14:22:40.503998-07:00","date_filed":"2023-09-06","time_filed":"17:03:15","entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-09-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":28,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/363869193/","id":363869193,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/370676683/","id":370676683,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/8/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-09-05T07:22:07.199838-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-06T06:18:59.991928-07:00","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":"8","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016254760","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-09-05T07:22:07.188807-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-06T06:18:59.982120-07:00","date_filed":"2023-09-05","time_filed":"09:17:41","entry_number":8,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-09-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":26,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/361480463/","id":361480463,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67679823/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/368119585/","id":368119585,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67679823/4/ullman-v-obm-miami-inc/","date_created":"2023-08-09T14:23:58.215448-07:00","date_modified":"2023-08-10T13:24:32.388656-07:00","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":"4","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016198653","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Report Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-08-09T14:23:58.206770-07:00","date_modified":"2023-08-10T13:24:32.383153-07:00","date_filed":"2023-08-09","time_filed":"16:20:42","entry_number":4,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-08-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":15,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=67679823&page_size=40"}