{"cached_at":"2026-09-26T09:56:17.920900+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68942852","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","id":68942852,"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/10352703/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1073/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-07-15T07:17:41.431795-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T17:44:07.565219-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Sidney A Fitzwater","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-07-19T03:45:17.270088-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-07-03","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2025-07-08","case_name_short":"Ogboru","case_name":"Ogboru v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company","case_name_full":"","slug":"ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company","docket_number":"3:24-cv-01705","docket_number_core":"2401705","docket_number_raw":"3:24-cv-01705","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"D","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"391746","cause":"28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract","nature_of_suit":"Contract: Insurance","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":"2024-07-15T07:17:41.407319-07:00","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/430707121/","id":430707121,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/444994918/","id":444994918,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/24/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2025-07-08T08:10:32.512995-07:00","date_modified":"2025-07-08T08:10:32.515585-07:00","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":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017820308","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order of Dismissal or Administrative Closure","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-07-08T08:10:32.502278-07:00","date_modified":"2025-07-08T08:10:32.504285-07:00","date_filed":"2025-07-08","time_filed":"09:40:56","entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-07-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":60,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425496196/","id":425496196,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439636954/","id":439636954,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/21/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2025-05-15T08:15:58.274373-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-15T08:15:58.277708-07:00","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":"177017691196","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-15T08:15:58.259759-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-15T08:15:58.263390-07:00","date_filed":"2025-05-15","time_filed":"09:54:44","entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":54,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418666137/","id":418666137,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432477313/","id":432477313,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/18/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2025-03-07T15:20:46.682909-08:00","date_modified":"2025-04-07T01:44:13.199748-07:00","sha1":"3ed7b19c23c89aa0ded0ef916ce42fb662eb103a","page_count":9,"file_size":130972,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746.18.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746.18.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01705-D         Document 18      Filed 03/07/25      Page 1 of 9     PageID 527\n\n\n\n                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                     FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                               DALLAS DIVISION\n\nJOSEPH OGBORU,                               \u00a7\n                                             \u00a7\n                      Plaintiff,             \u00a7\n                                             \u00a7\nVS.                                          \u00a7       Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-1705-D\n                                             \u00a7\nALLSTATE VEHICLE & PROPERTY                  \u00a7\nINSURANCE COMPANY,                           \u00a7\n                                             \u00a7\n                      Defendant.             \u00a7\n\n                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION\n                                       AND ORDER\n\n       In this removed diversity action, defendant Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance\n\nCompany (\u201cAllstate\u201d) moves under Tex. Ins. Code Ann. \u00a7 542A.007 (West 2017) to limit\n\nthe attorney\u2019s fees of plaintiff Joseph Ogboru (\u201cOgboru\u201d).1 Ogboru opposes the motion. For\n\nthe reasons that follow, the court grants the motion.\n\n                                                 I\n\n       This lawsuit arises out of hail damage to Ogboru\u2019s real property occurring on or about\n\nApril 25, 2022 and reported to Allstate on April 26, 2022. Ogboru sued Allstate on May 2,\n\n2024, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,\n\nviolations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, violations of\n\nthe Texas Insurance Code, and gross negligence for Allstate\u2019s alleged mishandling of his\n\nclaim. Allstate maintains that the attorney\u2019s fees that Ogboru\u2019s incurred on or after July 1,\n\n\n       1\n       Allstate does not request additional abatement time because more than 60 days have\nelapsed, but it re-urges its motion to limit attorney\u2019s fees incurred on or after July 1, 2024.\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D        Document 18       Filed 03/07/25      Page 2 of 9      PageID 528\n\n\n\n2024 must be limited because he filed this lawsuit without giving the presuit notice that\n\n\u00a7 542A.003 requires.\n\n       Section 542A.003(a) provides:\n\n               In addition to any other notice required by law or the applicable\n              insurance policy, not later than the 61st day before the date a\n              claimant files an action to which this chapter applies in which\n              the claimant seeks damages from any person, the claimant must\n              give written notice to the person in accordance with this section\n              as a prerequisite to filing the action.\n\nAccording to Allstate, Ogboru sent a demand letter to Allstate on March 22, 2024, and, just\n\n41 days later, on May 2, 2024, filed this lawsuit.\n\n       Ogboru opposes Allstate\u2019s motion on four grounds: first, the motion is not authorized\n\nin the federal rules; second, Allstate has already received an abatement that gave it the full\n\ntime permitted by the statute to contemplate settlement; third, Ogboru reasonably believed\n\nthat the limitations period was set to expire; and, fourth, alternatively, the court should deny\n\nAllstate\u2019s motion without prejudice, or continue its consideration of the motion, until basic\n\ndiscovery has occurred.\n\n       The court is deciding Allstate\u2019s motion on the briefs, without oral argument.2\n\n                                               II\n\n       Ogboru maintains, first, that Allstate\u2019s motion should be denied because a motion to\n\n\u201climit\u201d a fee claim is not authorized by the federal rules. He cites decisions by two members\n\n\n       2\n          Ogboru filed his opposition response on November 18, 2024, making Allstate\u2019s reply,\nif it desired to file one, due on December 2, 2024. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7.1(f). Because no\nreply has been filed, and the time to reply has expired, the motion is ripe for decision.\n\n                                             -2-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D         Document 18       Filed 03/07/25      Page 3 of 9     PageID 529\n\n\n\nof this court\u2014Judge Pittman3 and Judge Means4\u2014to support this assertion. Ogboru posits\n\nthat, while \u201cthere have been courts that have granted motions of this nature . . . in none of the\n\ncases involving orders favorable to insurers was the procedural validity of the motion\n\nchallenged.\u201d P. Br. (ECF No. 17) at 4. He contends that Allstate cannot rely on decisions\n\nthat grant such motions if in those cases the procedural mechanism was not challenged.\n\nOgboru maintains that his counsel has reviewed all of the decisions on \u00a7 542A\u2019s notice\n\nrequirement available in legal search engines, and none, other than those authored by Judges\n\nPittman and Means, addresses this matter. Finally, he contends that a state statute does not\n\ntrump the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; that, at most, state law controls only the\n\nsubstantive, not procedural, elements of law; that the type of motion that is appropriately\n\nfiled is a pure question of procedure, not substance; and that \u00a7542A does dictate, or even\n\nsuggest, the type.\n\n       In M Cent. Residences Condo. Ass\u2019n v. Tech. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 4089388, at *2 (N.D.\n\nTex. June 20, 2023) (Fitzwater, J.), the court granted a motion similar to the one that Allstate\n\nnow brings, explaining that\n\n\n\n\n       3\n        Sellers v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., No. 4:23-CV-319-P, ECF No. 19 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18,\n2023) (Pittman, J.) (denying motion to preclude as not mentioned in the Federal Rules of\nCivil Procedure).\n       4\n       HCS Real Estate, LLC v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 4:22-CV-866-Y (N.D. Tex. Jan.\n19, 2023) (Means, J.) (\u201cThe Court is lost as to the authority that it possesses to grant\nDefendant\u2019s request without the argument\u2019s presentation in a motion governed by the Federal\nRules of Civil Procedure.\u201d).\n\n                                              -3-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D           Document 18        Filed 03/07/25      Page 4 of 9        PageID 530\n\n\n\n                 [t]his motion is a creature of state insurance law. See Tex. Ins.\n                 Code Ann. \u00a7 542A.007(d). Motions to deny attorney\u2019s fees\n                 claims have been granted by other judges of this court. See, e.g.,\n                 Tadeo v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4284710, at *9 (N.D. Tex.\n                 Jul. 27, 2020) (Fish, J.); see also Rahe v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co.,\n                 2022 WL 614995, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2022) (Brown, J.).\n                 And other members of this court have granted similar motions:\n                 Sarwar v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 2023 WL 36073, at *1 (N.D.\n                 Tex. Jan. 3, 2023) (Fish, J.) (motion to preclude attorney\u2019s fees);\n                 Stalcup v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ind., 2022 WL 17345930, at *2\n                 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2022) (Parker, J.) (motion to cap attorney\u2019s\n                 fees); and Paradise Fruits & Vegetables, L.P. v. Nat\u2019l Fire &\n                 Marine Mut. Ins., 2022 WL 17998563, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 1,\n                 2022) (Godbey, J.) (motion to strike claim for attorney\u2019s fees).\n\nId. at *1 n.1.\n\n       The court also explained that\n\n                 [t]his state-law provision and those closely related to it, Tex. Ins.\n                 Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7542A.004-542A.007, have been deemed\n                 substantive by other judges of this court, and thus applicable to\n                 a case like this that was removed based on diversity of\n                 citizenship. See, e.g., Jordan Indus., LLC v. Travelers Indem.\n                 Co. of Am., 2022 WL 2719630, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2022)\n                 (Ray, J.); Gateway Plaza Condo v. The Travelers Indem. Co. of\n                 Am., 2019 WL 7187249, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2019)\n                 (Scholer, J.).\n\nId. at *2.\n\n       Since M Cent. Residences Condo. Ass\u2019n was decided, judges of this court have\n\ncontinued to apply the presuit notice requirement of \u00a7 542A\u2014indeed, have done so in cases\n\nwhere the parties apparently did not question the applicability of this Texas statute in federal\n\ndiversity actions. See, e.g., D. Reynolds Co. v. AGCS Marine Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3585636,\n\nat *1-2 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2024) (Horan, J.); Larsen Holdings, LLC v. ANPAC La. Ins. Co.,\n\n\n                                                 -4-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D         Document 18      Filed 03/07/25      Page 5 of 9     PageID 531\n\n\n\n2024 WL 3186667, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. May 20, 2024) (Lynn, J.); Montiel v. Allstate Vehicle\n\n& Prop. Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1184424, at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2024) (Reno, J.);\n\nCompound S., LLC v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 2024 WL 858011, at *3-5 (N.D. Tex. Jan.\n\n31, 2024) (Bryant, J.) (discussing M Cent. Residences Condo. Ass\u2019n). And while the absence\n\nin those cases of a challenge to the statute\u2019s applicability means that the issue was not\n\nexplicitly contested and resolved, it may also indicate that no party even considered it\n\nworthwhile to make such a challenge. In any event, no decision of a judge of this court since\n\nthe undersigned decided M Cent. Residences Condo. Ass\u2019n persuades the court to reach a\n\ndifferent result in this case.\n\n       Pending further developments in the law, this court continues to hold that \u00a7 542A\n\napplies in federal court when state law controls, such as in a case removed to federal court\n\nbased on diversity of citizenship.\n\n                                            III\n\n       Ogboru next maintains that Allstate is not entitled to limit Ogboru\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees\n\nbecause it has already received an abatement that gave it the full time permitted by the statute\n\nto contemplate settlement. Ogboru alleges that Allstate \u201creceived an abatement from plaintiff\n\nand thus had the opportunity to resolve the dispute within 60 days based on the petition /\n\ncomplaint so it could avoid litigation.\u201d P. Resp. Br. (ECF No. 17) at 7. To the contrary,\n\nhowever, no abatement has been granted by this court, nor did the state court grant an\n\nabatement before the case was removed to this court. Because Ogboru has provided no other\n\nexplanation for how the remedy of abatement has already been provided, the court need not\n\n                                             -5-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D         Document 18       Filed 03/07/25      Page 6 of 9     PageID 532\n\n\n\ndecide whether the receipt of an abatement forecloses a defendant-insurer from seeking to\n\nlimit attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to \u00a7 542A.007(d).\n\n                                            IV\n\n       Ogboru next contends that Allstate is not entitled to limit attorney\u2019s fees because\n\nOgboru reasonably believed that the limitations period was set to expire. He contends that\n\nhis counsel did not realize until after March 22, 2024, upon \u201csubsequent review of dates and\n\nactions,\u201d that a letter that Allstate sent on May 7, 2022 stating that it was paying $0 to settle\n\nthe claim may have started the limitations period. P. Resp. (ECF No. 17) at 11. Therefore,\n\nat the time that his counsel realized that the limitations period may have already begun, there\n\nwas no time to provide notice \u201cat least 61 days before the date the action was filed\u201d per \u00a7\n\n542A.007(d).\n\n       The Texas Insurance Code provides that presuit notice compliant with \u00a7 542A.003(a)\n\nis not required \u201cif giving notice is impracticable because . . . the claimant has a reasonable\n\nbasis for believing there is insufficient time to give the presuit notice before the limitations\n\nperiod will expire[.]\u201d Tex. Ins. Code Ann. \u00a7 542A.003(d) (West 2017). The \u201creasonable\n\nbasis\u201d standard for impracticability is \u201cnot an easy threshold to satisfy and \u2018ought to be\n\nreserved for those instances in which presuit notice genuinely cannot be provided.\u2019\u201d Sarwar,\n\nat *3 (quoting Hlavinka Equip. Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 546 F.Supp.3d 534,\n\n536 (S.D. Tex. 2021)). Thus, for notice to be excused, impracticability must be supported\n\nby a \u201creason independent from simply stating that the impending expiration of the limitations\n\nperiod made the notice impracticable.\u201d Hosp. Operations, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., 2019\n\n                                              -6-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D         Document 18        Filed 03/07/25      Page 7 of 9      PageID 533\n\n\n\nWL 11690209, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2019); see also Pemberton v. Unitrin Preferred Ins.\n\nCo., 2022 WL 2763160, at *2-3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2022). A plaintiff\u2019s \u201cgenuine belief that\n\nlimitations might expire does not constitute the pleading and proof required to establish the\n\nstatutory limitations exception to the presuit notice requirement.\u201d Vuong Huynh Corp. v.\n\nCertain Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s, London, 2019 WL 11268988, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23,\n\n2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Cypress Tex. Lloyds, 437 S.W.3d 1,\n\n9 (Tex. App. 2011, no pet.)).\n\n       The fact that Ogboru did not realize that the statute of limitations may have started\n\nwhen the May 7, 2022 letter was sent until nearly two years after receiving that letter is not\n\nsufficient to show that giving presuit notice was impracticable. Ogboru has presumably been\n\nin possession of this letter since May of 2022, and Ogboru\u2019s counsel indicates in his\n\ndeclaration that his firm received the letter from Allstate as well. P. App. (ECF No. 17-1)\n\nat 3. The fact that he did not realize that it could have started the statute of limitations period\n\nuntil his counsel reviewed the document nearly two years after it was sent does not excuse\n\nthe lack of timely presuit notice in this case. There is no indication that Ogboru could not\n\nhave provided notice at any point during his attempts to resolve his claim prior to filing suit.\n\nSee M Cent. Residences Condo. Ass\u2019n, 2023 WL 4089388, at *3 (concluding that timely\n\npresuit notice was not impracticable in part because it was \u201cnot apparent why M Central\n\ncould not provide notice while attempting to resolve its potential claim without filing suit\u201d).\n\nThe court therefore concludes that Ogboru\u2019s failure to provide presuit notice was not excused\n\nunder \u00a7 542A.003(d).\n\n                                               -7-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D        Document 18         Filed 03/07/25    Page 8 of 9     PageID 534\n\n\n\n                                            V\n\n       Alternatively, Ogboru contends that the court should deny Allstate\u2019s motion without\n\nprejudice, or continue its consideration of the motion, until basic discovery has occurred.\n\nOgboru maintains that discovery is necessary to determine whether he had a reasonable basis\n\nfor believing that there was insufficient time to give the presuit notice before the limitations\n\nperiod would have expired such that the lack of notice was excused under \u00a7 542A.003(d)(1).\n\n       In this case, Allstate has not filed a reply challenging any of Ogboru\u2019s assertions\n\nregarding the circumstances leading to his filing suit without providing Allstate \u00a7 542A.003\n\nnotice. But even if, as Ogboru had suspected, the May 7, 2022 letter was intended to be the\n\nfinal resolution of Ogboru\u2019s claim and the statute of limitations had begun, the circumstances\n\nasserted in Ogboru\u2019s response would not permit a finding of impracticability for the reasons\n\ndiscussed above, see supra \u00a7 IV. The court therefore declines to delay ruling on this motion\n\nso that the parties can conduct basic discovery.\n\n\n\n\n                                             -8-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01705-D         Document 18        Filed 03/07/25     Page 9 of 9      PageID 535\n\n\n\n                                           *     *    *\n\n       For the reasons explained, the court grants Allstate\u2019s motion to limit attorney\u2019s fees\n\nincurred after July 1, 2024, the date that Allstate filed its initial motion pursuant to Tex. Ins.\n\nCode Ann. \u00a7 542A.007(d) (West 2017).5\n\n       SO ORDERED.\n\n       March 7, 2025.\n\n\n\n                                               _________________________________\n                                               SIDNEY A. FITZWATER\n                                               SENIOR JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n       5\n        Section 542A.007(d) states that, absent timely presuit notice stating the specific\namount alleged to be owed, the court may not award \u201cany attorney\u2019s fees incurred after the\ndate the defendant files the pleading with the court.\u201d Tex. Ins. Code Ann. \u00a7 542A.007(d)\n(West 2017) (emphasis added). Therefore, the court grants the motion as to fees incurred\nafter July 1, 2024, but not as to fees incurred on that date.\n\n                                                -9-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-03-09T03:22:46.826353-07:00","document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017522627","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum Opinion and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-07T15:20:46.671075-08:00","date_modified":"2025-04-07T01:44:13.164465-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-07","time_filed":"17:07:56","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":46,"description":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting MOTION to Limit Attorney's Fees of Plaintiff filed by Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company.     (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/7/2025) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/406390821/","id":406390821,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417652785/","id":417652785,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/14/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.812386-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.815740-07:00","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":"14","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017226131","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.804324-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.806202-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-28","time_filed":"10:41:22","entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":37,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/406390820/","id":406390820,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417652784/","id":417652784,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/15/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.767101-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.770749-07:00","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":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017226136","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Setting Deadline/Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.758407-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-28T08:55:50.759751-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-28","time_filed":"10:44:56","entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":39,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/406150934/","id":406150934,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417342950/","id":417342950,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/13/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-10-24T14:11:39.977405-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-24T14:11:39.981988-07:00","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":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017220754","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-24T14:11:39.959189-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-24T14:11:39.964160-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-24","time_filed":"15:33:04","entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":35,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/404299070/","id":404299070,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414792859/","id":414792859,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/9/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-10-04T12:21:03.210015-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-04T12:21:03.213517-07:00","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":"177017176548","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order for Scheduling Order Proposal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-04T12:21:03.195361-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-04T12:21:03.199955-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-04","time_filed":"13:55:11","entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":27,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403062200/","id":403062200,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/413093330/","id":413093330,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-09-23T11:17:16.457055-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-23T11:17:16.466699-07:00","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 Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-23T11:17:16.428147-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-23T11:17:16.428168-07:00","date_filed":"2024-09-23","time_filed":"13:03:25","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-09-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400304841/","id":400304841,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409534439/","id":409534439,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/5/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:41.043361-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:15:48.567511-07:00","sha1":"033c6536632855f665d1f1e959299af644896313","page_count":14,"file_size":775977,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746.5.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746/gov.uscourts.txnd.391746.5.0.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":"2026-08-31T17:44:07.489439-07:00","document_number":"5","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":"2024-08-23T12:23:41.028404-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-23T12:23:41.031673-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":"13:20:18","entry_number":5,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":19,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396412827/","id":396412827,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68942852/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405559589/","id":405559589,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68942852/3/ogboru-v-allstate-vehicle-and-property-insurance-company/","date_created":"2024-07-15T07:17:41.458244-07:00","date_modified":"2024-07-15T07:17:41.463340-07:00","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":"3","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016980723","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order And Notice of Deficiency","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-15T07:17:41.445787-07:00","date_modified":"2024-07-15T07:17:41.449469-07:00","date_filed":"2024-07-15","time_filed":"08:26:28","entry_number":3,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-07-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":13,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=68942852&page_size=40"}