{"cached_at":"2026-10-03T10:44:54.924846+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68504703","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","id":68504703,"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/10310881/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1782/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68504703/gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc/","date_created":"2024-05-06T14:19:31.274082-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T17:44:02.631655-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Ed Kinkeade","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-05-15T03:58:57.080496-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-05-06","date_terminated":"2025-01-08","date_last_filing":"2025-01-08","case_name_short":"","case_name":"G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Frida's Tacos LLC","case_name_full":"","slug":"gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc","docket_number":"3:24-cv-01083","docket_number_core":"2401083","docket_number_raw":"3:24-cv-01083","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"K","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"389462","cause":"28:1131ca Federal Question:  Federal Communications Act","nature_of_suit":"Other Statutes: Cable/Satellite TV","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":"2024-05-06T14:19:31.267738-07:00","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/412995927/","id":412995927,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/426548201/","id":426548201,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68504703/17/gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc/","date_created":"2025-01-08T15:21:25.555917-08:00","date_modified":"2025-02-08T02:20:36.704766-08:00","sha1":"d385d6865dd5692cc5a7f84e082b9de9afc3188f","page_count":12,"file_size":127111,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462.17.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462.17.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01083-K      Document 17       Filed 01/08/25    Page 1 of 12   PageID 237\n\n\n\n                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                  FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                            DALLAS DIVISION\n\nG&G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS,               \u00a7\nLLC, as Broadcast Licensee of the May 8, \u00a7\n2021Saul \u201cCanelo\u201d Alvarez v. Billy Joe   \u00a7\nSaunders Championship Fight Program, \u00a7\n                                         \u00a7              Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-1083-K\n      Plaintiff,                         \u00a7\n                                         \u00a7\nv.                                       \u00a7\n                                         \u00a7\n1) FRIDA\u2019S TACOS, LLC, individually, \u00a7\nand d/b/a FRIDA\u2019S TACOS and              \u00a7\n2) MARIA E. BARRAGAN, individually, \u00a7\nand d/b/a FRIDA\u2019S TACOS,                 \u00a7\n                                         \u00a7\n      Defendants.                        \u00a7\n\n                    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\n       Before the Court is Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC\u2019s Motion for\n\nFinal Default Judgment (Doc. No. 16) and Appendix in support (Doc. No. 16-1)\n\n(together, the \u201cMotion\u201d). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the relevant\n\nportions of the record, and the applicable law. The Court GRANTS in part the Motion\n\nfor the following reasons. The Court DENIES without prejudice the request for\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees related to post-trial and/or appellate services.\n\n       I.     Factual and Procedural Background\n\n       Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) is the license company\n\nthat was exclusively authorized to sub-license the closed-circuit telecast of the May 8,\n\n2021, Saul \u201cCanelo\u201d Alvarez v. Billy Joe Saunders Championship Fight Program,\n\n\n                                             1\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K       Document 17       Filed 01/08/25     Page 2 of 12     PageID 238\n\n\n\nincluding the undercard or preliminary bouts and commentary (the \u201cEvent\u201d), at closed-\n\ncircuit locations such as theaters, arenas, bars, clubs, lounges, restaurants, and the like\n\nthroughout Texas. Doc. No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that, on the date of the Event,\n\nDefendant Frida\u2019s Tacos, LLC, individually and d/b/a Frida\u2019s Tacos (\u201cFrida\u2019s Tacos\u201d),\n\nowned and/or operated the commercial establishment at 1601 Singleton Blvd., Dallas,\n\nTexas, 75212 (the \u201cEstablishment\u201d), and supervised and had a direct financial interest\n\nin the Establishment\u2019s activities. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that, on the date of the Event,\n\nDefendant Maria E. Barragan, individually and d/b/a Frida\u2019s Tacos, (\u201cBarragan\u201d)\n\n(together with Frida\u2019s Tacos, the \u201cDefendants\u201d), was an owner/manager of the\n\nEstablishment, was an owner/officer of the entity that owned the Establishment and\n\nthe real property on which it was located, and supervised and had a direct financial\n\ninterest in the Establishment\u2019s activities. Id.\n\n       Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not purchase the right to broadcast the\n\nEvent on May 8, 2021, either by satellite transmission or through unauthorized receipt\n\nover a cable system, they willfully intercepted or received the interstate communication\n\nof the Event or, alternatively, assisted in the receipt of the interstate communication\n\nof the Event. Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, Defendants then broadcast, or assisted in\n\nbroadcasting, the Event to patrons, thereby misappropriating Plaintiff\u2019s licenses to the\n\nexhibition of the Event and infringing on Plaintiff\u2019s exclusive rights without proper\n\npayment or authorization. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff alleges these actions were willful and\n\nwith intent and purpose to obtain a commercial advantage and private financial gain.\n\n\n                                              2\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K       Document 17     Filed 01/08/25    Page 3 of 12    PageID 239\n\n\n\nId. at 4. Plaintiff thereafter filed this action on May 6, 2024, alleging violations of 47\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 553 or 605.\n\n         Both Defendants were served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on\n\nJune 13, 2024 (Doc. Nos. 7 & 8) and, to-date, have failed to answer or otherwise\n\nrespond to Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint. On September 17, 2024, the Court dismissed the\n\ncase after Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order. Doc. Nos. 10 (order to move\n\nfor default or provide legal basis for why the case should be maintained on the docket);\n\n11 (order dismissing). On Plaintiff\u2019s motion to reopen the case, the Court granted the\n\nrelief, vacated the order of dismissal, and re-instated the case. Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff\n\nfiled its Request for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 15), and the Clerk entered default\n\nagainst Defendants (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff now moves for final default judgment\n\nagainst Defendants, including attorneys\u2019 fees and statutory damages under 47 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 605.\n\n         II.   Analysis\n\n         By entering default judgment, \u201cconduct on which liability is based may be taken\n\nas true as a consequence of the default.\u201d Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Alima, No. 3:13-\n\nCV-0889-B, 2014 WL 1632158, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2014)(Boyle, J.) (quoting\n\nFrame v. S\u2014H Inc., 967 F.2d 194, 205 (5th Cir. 1992)) (quotation marks omitted).\n\nThe court accepts the well-pleaded allegations of facts in the complaint as true when\n\nconsidering a motion for default judgment. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat\u2019l Bank,\n\n515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).\n\n\n                                            3\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K      Document 17      Filed 01/08/25    Page 4 of 12    PageID 240\n\n\n\n      There is a two-step process when determining whether default judgment should\n\nbe entered. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., 2014 WL 1632158, at *1. First, the court must\n\nconsider whether the entry of default judgment is appropriate under the circumstances.\n\nId. Second, the court must address the merits of the plaintiff\u2019s claims and determine if\n\nthere is sufficient basis in the pleadings for the default judgment. Nishimatsu Constr.\n\nCo., at 1206.\n\n                A.   Entry of default judgment is appropriate\n\n      The Court finds the entry of default is appropriate under these circumstances.\n\nJoe Hand Promotions, Inc., 2014 WL 1632158, at *1. The prerequisite elements for\n\nentering a default judgment are met. The record establishes that neither Defendant is\n\na minor nor an incompetent person, and neither Defendant is currently serving in the\n\nmilitary. See FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2); 50 App. U.S.C. \u00a7 521(a),(b)(1)(A)-(B)). Further,\n\nthe Court has jurisdiction over this matter and these parties.\n\n      In determining if default judgment against a party is appropriate, the court\n\nconsiders six factors: (1) whether material issues of fact are at issue; (2) whether there\n\nhas been substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default are clearly\n\nestablished; (4) whether the default was caused by a good faith mistake or excusable\n\nneglect; (5) the harshness of a default judgment; and (6) whether the court would think\n\nitself obliged to set aside the default on the defendant\u2019s motion. Lindsey v. Prive Corp.,\n\n161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998).\n\n\n\n\n                                            4\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K     Document 17      Filed 01/08/25    Page 5 of 12    PageID 241\n\n\n\n      Applying the Lindsey factors to this case, default judgment against both\n\nDefendants is proper. See id. There are no material issues of fact in dispute. Despite\n\nreceiving proper service, neither Defendant has responded to Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint nor\n\nany other pleadings in this case, including Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Final Default\n\nJudgment. Further, Defendants have had ample time to respond to the Complaint or\n\notherwise appear in this case to defend. The grounds for default are clearly established.\n\nDefendants have not been prejudiced in any way in this case. There is nothing before\n\nthe Court to indicate that either Defendant\u2019s default was caused by a good faith\n\nmistake or excusable neglect. The Court is also unaware of any facts from this case\n\nthat would give the Court reason to set aside the default if either Defendant challenged\n\nthe judgment. The application of the Lindsey factors weighs substantially in favor of\n\ngranting default judgment against both Defendants. The entry of default judgment\n\nagainst Defendant Frida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Barragan is appropriate under these\n\ncircumstances.\n\n             B.     Sufficient basis for Plaintiff\u2019s claims.\n\n      After considering whether entry of default judgment is appropriate under the\n\ncircumstances, the Court must determine if there is a sufficient basis for Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nclaims as alleged in the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). See Nishimatsu Constr. Co., 515 F.2d\n\nat 1206. Defendants are deemed to have admitted the allegations from Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint. See Frame, 967 F.2d at 205 (\u201c[C]onduct on which liability is based may be\n\ntaken as true as a consequence of the default.\u201d).\n\n\n                                           5\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K      Document 17      Filed 01/08/25     Page 6 of 12    PageID 242\n\n\n\n       Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally intercepted and broadcasted cable or\n\nsatellite transmissions when they showed the Event on May 8, 2021, in violation of 47\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 553 or 605. Section 553 is violated by \u201cintercept[ing] or receiv[ing] or\n\nassist[ing] in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable\n\nsystem\u201d without authorization. 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 553(a); see also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.,\n\n2014 WL 1632158, at *3 (finding that the complaint established a violation of \u00a7 553\n\nwith allegations that the defendants intercepted and broadcasted boxing matches\n\nwithout authorization). Section 605 is violated when one \u201cintercept[s] any radio\n\ncommunication . . . receive[s] or assist[s] in receiving any interstate or foreign\n\ncommunication by radio and use[s] such communication . . . for his own benefit or for\n\nthe benefit of another not entitled thereto.\u201d \u00a7 605(a); see also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.,\n\n2014 WL 1632158, at *3 (holding that the pleadings established a viable claim for\n\nrelief because of a violation of 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 605).\n\n       Defendant Frida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Barragan are both alleged to have\n\nshown the Event to patrons without authorization, license, or permission to do so from\n\nPlaintiff, the exclusive licensee to the commercial distribution of the Event. Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint alleges that Defendants did not contract with Plaintiff and pay the proper\n\ncommercial, non-residential license fee to Plaintiff to show the Event. Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint further alleges that, on the date of the Event, \u201ceither by satellite\n\ntransmission or through unauthorized receipt over a cable system, Defendants willfully\n\nintercepted or received the interstate communication of the Event\u201d or, alternatively,\n\n\n                                            6\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K     Document 17       Filed 01/08/25   Page 7 of 12     PageID 243\n\n\n\n\u201cDefendants assisted in the receipt of the interstate communication of the Event.\n\nDefendants then transmitted, divulged and published said communication, or assisted\n\nin transmitting, divulging and publishing said communication, to patrons within the\n\nEstablishment.\u201d Doc. No. 1 at 4. \u201c[C]ircumstantial evidence can support a finding that\n\na communication was intercepted, even absent direct evidence.\u201d See DIRECTTV, Inc.\n\nv. Robinson, 420 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint establishes that\n\nit had the exclusive right to sublicense broadcasts of the Event, Defendants unlawfully\n\nintercepted and then broadcast the Event to patrons at the Establishment, and\n\nDefendants did so without proper license, authorization, or permission from Plaintiff.\n\nThis is sufficient evidence of Defendants\u2019 liability under either \u00a7 553 or \u00a7 605. See J&J\n\nSports Prods., Inc. v. Chance Club Corp., Civ. Action No. 4:10-CV-294-Y, 2011 WL\n\n2909885, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 20, 2011)(Means, J.) (finding violation when the\n\nplaintiff had the exclusive right to sublicense the video of the event and the defendant\n\nbroadcast the event without sublicense).\n\n      III.   Damages, Attorney\u2019s Fees, and Costs\n\n      Plaintiff seeks statutory damages rather than actual damages against Defendant\n\nFrida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Barragan pursuant to \u00a7 605.           See \u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(i)\n\n(providing that a party may elect either statutory damages or actual damages); see also\n\nJoe Hand Promotions, Inc., 2014 WL 1632158, at *3 (\u201cAlthough Defendants likely\n\nviolated both \u00a7\u00a7 553 and 605, Joe Hand cannot recover under both provisions. The\n\nCourt, therefore, focuses only on the award of damages under \u00a7 605 because it allows\n\n\n                                            7\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K       Document 17     Filed 01/08/25    Page 8 of 12    PageID 244\n\n\n\nfor greater recovery by Joe Hand.\u201d) (citations omitted). Statutory damages under\n\nSection 605 must be awarded in an amount \u201cnot less than $1,000 or more than\n\n$10,000, as the court considers just.\u201d \u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).\n\n      Plaintiff seeks an award of $10,000, which is the statutory maximum. Based on\n\nthis record, a venue such as the Establishment, which has an approximate maximum\n\noccupancy of 80 people, see Doc. No. 16-1 at APP041, would have been required to\n\npay a $1,200 sublicensing fee to Plaintiff, see id. at APP044, in order to exhibit the\n\nEvent at the Establishment. In support of its damages request Plaintiff submitted the\n\ndeclaration of Thomas P. Riley (\u201cMr. Riley\u201d), counsel hired by Plaintiff \u201cto assist\u201d with\n\n\u201ccertain infringement matters\u201d. Id. at APP005. Mr. Riley states that the piracy of\n\nbroadcasts by unauthorized and unlicensed commercial venues, such as the\n\nEstablishment which is owned, operated, maintained, and/or controlled by Defendant\n\nFrida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Barragan, causes Plaintiff to lose customers from\n\nsublicense sales to future events, has damaged Plaintiff\u2019s goodwill and reputation, and\n\nhas caused Plaintiff to lose \u201cits right and ability to control and receive sublicensing\n\nfees\u201d for the Event from legitimate commercial establishments. See, e.g., id. at APP 009-\n\n011. Mr. Riley also states that Defendants\u2019 patrons purchased food and/or drinks while\n\nwatching the pirated Event. Id. at APP009; see also id.at APP040 (affidavit of Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nAuditor that he paid no cover charge to enter the Establishment and watch the\n\nbroadcast of the Event).\n\n\n\n\n                                            8\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K      Document 17       Filed 01/08/25    Page 9 of 12     PageID 245\n\n\n\n       Plaintiff would have charged Defendants $1,200 to sublicense the broadcast of\n\nthe Event. See id. at APP041 (capacity of \u201cthis [E]stablishment is approximately 80\u201d);\n\nAPP044 (rate card for the Event). In light of this record and the need to deter future\n\nviolations, the Court finds that an award of $1,200 in statutory damages under \u00a7\n\n605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) is appropriate and just.\n\n       A party is entitled to additional damages under 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) if\n\nthe defendant is determined to have \u201cwillfully\u201d violated Section 605. If the violation\n\n\u201cwas committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage\n\nor private financial gain,\u201d the Court, in its discretion, may increase the damage awarded\n\nby an amount of not more than $100,000. 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).\n\n       Plaintiff seeks $50,000 in additional damages because of Defendants\u2019 alleged\n\nwillful violation of Section 605. Plaintiff asserts that the transmission of the Event was\n\nintentionally done by Defendants for their financial gain and there are no ways in\n\nwhich \u201cDefendants could have \u2018innocently\u2019 accessed the broadcast of the Event\u201d. Doc.\n\nNo. 16 at 7; see Doc. No. 16-1 at APP009-011. Plaintiff contends that Defendants\n\n\u201cknew that it was wrong to receive, intercept and divert the signal of the Event and to\n\nbroadcast it in Defendants\u2019 Establishment.\u201d        Id.   Even though there is no direct\n\nevidence of willfulness by either Defendant, courts have found similar reasoning to that\n\noffered by Plaintiff as sufficiently establishing a \u201cwillful\u201d violation of Section 605. See,\n\ne.g., Entm\u2019t by J & J, Inc. v. Al-Waha Enters., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 769, 777 (S.D. Tex.\n\n2002) (finding Section 605 was \u201cwillfully\u201d violated because of the \u201climited methods of\n\n\n                                             9\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K     Document 17     Filed 01/08/25    Page 10 of 12    PageID 246\n\n\n\nintercepting closed circuit broadcasting of pay-per-view events and the low probability\n\nthat a commercial establishment could intercept such a broadcast merely by chance . .\n\n. .\u201d); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. 2 Tacos Bar & Grill, LLC, Civ. Action No. 3:16-CV-\n\n01889-M, 2017 WL 373478, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2017)(Lynn, CJ) (same); Joe\n\nHand Promotions, Inc., 2014 WL 1632158, at *5 (finding the argument that the\n\n\u201c[d]efendants could not have innocently accessed the broadcast of the Event\u201d\n\npersuasive when determining whether the defendants \u201cwillfully\u201d violated Section 605)\n\n(quotation marks omitted). This Court finds the analysis of these courts to be well-\n\nreasoned and concludes that Defendant Frida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Barragan both\n\nwillfully violated Section 605. However, the Court finds that additional damages under\n\n\u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) of four times the base statutory damages, or $4,800, is reasonable.\n\nSee also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., 2014 WL 1632158, at *5 (\u201cThough there is little\n\nguidance how the Court should weigh certain factors when calculating additional\n\ndamages, many courts have applied [] multipliers of three to five when faced with a\n\ndefendant who broadcast an event willfully for his own commercial benefit.\u201d).\n\n      Under \u00a7 605, Plaintiff is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees\n\nand court costs incurred during the prosecution of this case. See \u00a7 605(e)(3)(B)(iii)\n\n(\u201cThe court . . . shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.\u201d). The Court has carefully reviewed\n\nthe supporting evidence, including the declaration of David M. Diaz (\u201cMr. Diaz\u201d),\n\ncounsel for Plaintiff in this matter. Mr. Diaz requests attorneys\u2019 fees based on a one-\n\n\n                                          10\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K     Document 17     Filed 01/08/25    Page 11 of 12    PageID 247\n\n\n\nthird contingent fee arrangement, that being one-third of the recovery. See Doc. No.\n\n16-1 at APP048-049. Providing his resume in support, Mr. Diaz cites his experience,\n\nknowledge, and training, as well as the factors in TEX. DISC. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.04\n\nand relevant case law, the work performed in this case specifically, as supporting the\n\nreasonableness of this fee. \u201cAn award equal to one-third of recovery is reasonable for\n\ncases such as this, and is frequently the measure of attorney\u2019s fees used in\n\nCommunications Act cases in federal courts in Texas.\u201d      J&J Sports Prods. v. Guzman,\n\n2020 WL 1330360, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2020) (cleaned up). Having carefully\n\nconsidered Mr. Diaz\u2019s Declaration, the Court concludes that, in this case, a one-third\n\ncontingency fee is reasonable. See id. (\u201cPlaintiff demonstrates, via an affidavit of its\n\nattorney, that an award of one-third of the recovery is reasonable in this case because\n\nof the attorney's training and experience with cases of this type and the attorney's\n\nreview of the twelve \u2018factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an\n\naward of attorney's fees.\u2019\u201d). As previously explained, the Court found Plaintiff should\n\nbe awarded $1,200 in statutory damages under \u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) and $4,800 in\n\nadditional statutory damages under \u00a7 605(e)(3)(C)(ii).      Accordingly, as Mr. Diaz\n\nrequests, the Court awards Plaintiff $2,000 in reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees incurred thus\n\nfar. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff\u2019s request for an award of attorneys\u2019\n\nfees for post-judgment and/or appellate work. Plaintiff may seek those fees later should\n\nPlaintiff incur them and only on formal motion to the Court.\n\n\n\n\n                                          11\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01083-K      Document 17      Filed 01/08/25    Page 12 of 12    PageID 248\n\n\n\n        The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs, but evidence\n\nof that amount has not been presented to the Court with this Motion. Plaintiff is also\n\nentitled to post-judgment interest at 4.17%, the current published rate. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n1961.\n\n        IV. Conclusion\n\n        For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff G&G Closed\n\nCircuit Events, LLC\u2019s Motion for Final Default Judgment against Defendant Frida\u2019s\n\nTacos, LLC, individually and d/b/a Frida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Maria E. Barragan,\n\nindividually and d/b/a Frida\u2019s Tacos. A separate default judgment will be entered.\n\nPlaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant Frida\u2019s Tacos, LLC, individually and\n\nd/b/a Frida\u2019s Tacos and Defendant Maria E. Barragan, individually and d/b/a Frida\u2019s\n\nTacos, jointly and severally: $1,200.00 in statutory damages; $4,800.00 in additional\n\ndamages for willful violation of \u00a7605; $2,000.00 in reasonable attorney\u2019s fees; its costs;\n\nand 4.17% post-judgment interest.\n\n        The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff\u2019s request for an award of\n\nprospective attorneys\u2019 fees for post-judgment and/or appellate services.\n\n        SO ORDERED.\n\n        Signed January 8th, 2025.\n\n                                                 ____________________________________\n                                                 ED KINKEADE\n                                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                            12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-09T01:47:56.324287-08:00","document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017378402","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum Opinion and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-01-08T15:21:25.546116-08:00","date_modified":"2025-02-08T02:20:36.695399-08:00","date_filed":"2025-01-08","time_filed":"16:52:46","entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-01-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":44,"description":"  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court is Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC's Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. No. 16) and Appendix in support (Doc. No. 16-1) (together, the \"Motion\"). The Court has carefully co nsidered the Motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. The Court GRANTS in part the Motion for the following reasons. The Court DENIES without prejudice the request for attorneys' fees related to post-trial and/or appellate services.  (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/8/2025) (chmb)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/412995911/","id":412995911,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/426548189/","id":426548189,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68504703/18/gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc/","date_created":"2025-01-08T15:21:25.391774-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-08T15:21:25.394520-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017378424","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-01-08T15:21:25.347818-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-08T15:21:25.380191-08:00","date_filed":"2025-01-08","time_filed":"16:54:16","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-01-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":47,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403960655/","id":403960655,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414326246/","id":414326246,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-01T17:11:46.695853-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-01T17:11:46.699771-07:00","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 Reopen Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T17:11:46.687005-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-01T17:11:46.687014-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-01","time_filed":"18:56:59","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/402518182/","id":402518182,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/412355428/","id":412355428,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-09-17T11:22:05.500784-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-17T11:22:05.507680-07:00","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 of Dismissal or Administrative Closure","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-17T11:22:05.486673-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-17T11:22:05.486683-07:00","date_filed":"2024-09-17","time_filed":"13:00:16","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-09-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400434509/","id":400434509,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409668231/","id":409668231,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-08-26T09:18:33.212911-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-26T09:18:33.234875-07:00","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","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-08-26T09:18:33.186125-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-26T09:18:33.186150-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-26","time_filed":"10:53:16","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400304516/","id":400304516,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409534114/","id":409534114,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68504703/9/gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc/","date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:31.044988-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:15:51.773253-07:00","sha1":"033c6536632855f665d1f1e959299af644896313","page_count":14,"file_size":775977,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462.9.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462/gov.uscourts.txnd.389462.9.0.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":"2026-08-31T17:44:02.503714-07:00","document_number":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017080232","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Reassigning Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:31.018579-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-23T12:23:31.026038-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":"13:20:18","entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":25,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/388793311/","id":388793311,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/397710538/","id":397710538,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68504703/1/gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc/","date_created":"2024-05-06T14:19:33.818488-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-07T07:20:27.567871-07:00","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":"1","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016819680","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-06T14:19:33.762049-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-07T07:20:27.538611-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-06","time_filed":"15:34:25","entry_number":1,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":7,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/388793121/","id":388793121,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68504703/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/397710345/","id":397710345,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68504703/3/gg-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-fridas-tacos-llc/","date_created":"2024-05-06T14:19:31.353283-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-07T07:20:27.048793-07:00","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":"177016819947","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-06T14:19:31.338216-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-07T07:20:27.028918-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-06","time_filed":"15:59:26","entry_number":3,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":12,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=68504703&page_size=40"}