{"cached_at":"2026-10-25T09:50:36.642036+00:00","cl_docket_id":"67567768","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","id":67567768,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txnd/","court_id":"txnd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1220/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2023-07-07T13:23:11.078215-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T17:49:36.529382-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"David C Godbey","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2023-07-12T05:56:02.049711-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-07-07","date_terminated":"2024-12-20","date_last_filing":"2024-12-20","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Bahamas Laguna Azure LLC v. City of Royse City, Texas","case_name_full":"","slug":"bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas","docket_number":"3:23-cv-01517","docket_number_core":"2301517","docket_number_raw":"3:23-cv-01517","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"N","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"378827","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2023-07-07T13:23:11.077024-07:00","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/411743284/","id":411743284,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/424904119/","id":424904119,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/24/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2024-12-20T14:17:47.501284-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-20T14:17:47.506982-08:00","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":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017348660","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":"2024-12-20T14:17:47.483766-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-20T14:17:47.488350-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-20","time_filed":"15:27:59","entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":58,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/404480088/","id":404480088,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/415053671/","id":415053671,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/22/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2024-10-07T13:20:11.602003-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-07T13:20:11.610390-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017180300","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":"2024-10-07T13:20:11.573360-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-07T13:20:11.576892-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-07","time_filed":"14:52:44","entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":54,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400324929/","id":400324929,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409554787/","id":409554787,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/20/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2024-08-23T14:20:54.066411-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:16:02.872487-07:00","sha1":"b1e3f73168fe87c443b14d4c50d27b594cd97892","page_count":14,"file_size":775597,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827.20.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827.20.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:23-cv-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Pagel of 14 14.5, AGP 194\ni\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-01024-L\n\nDocument 20 Filed 08/23/24\n\nPage 2o0f14 PagelD 192\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-01024-L\n\nDocument 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page3of14 PagelD 193\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-01024-L\n\nDocument 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page4of14 PagelD 194\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-01024-L\n\nDocument 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page5of14\n\nPagelD 195\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page6of14 PagelD 196\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\fExhibit A\n\nCase 3:23-cv-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page7of14 PagelD 197\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n\n100 3:23-cv-02009-G-BN Hunsinger v. Atmos Energy Corporation\n\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page8of14 PagelD 198\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 PageQ9of14 PagelD 199\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page10o0f14 PagelD 200\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\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Pagei1lof14 PagelD 201\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-01024-L\n\nDocument 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page12of14 PagelD 202\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page130f14 PagelD 203\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-01024-L Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page14o0f14 PagelD 204\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":"2026-08-31T17:49:36.446486-07:00","document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017081242","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Reassigning Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-08-23T14:20:53.985425-07:00","date_modified":"2024-08-23T14:20:54.008426-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":"15:30:33","entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":50,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/394569328/","id":394569328,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/403665423/","id":403665423,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-24T15:14:41.426861-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-24T15:14:41.434846-07:00","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":"2024-06-24T15:14:41.409904-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-24T15:14:41.409926-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-24","time_filed":"16:55:01","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/381319468/","id":381319468,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389113657/","id":389113657,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/17/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2024-03-15T16:22:26.930535-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-15T16:22:26.940103-07:00","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":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016699661","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-15T16:22:26.892952-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-15T16:22:26.901423-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-15","time_filed":"18:09:45","entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":44,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/372996710/","id":372996710,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/380541906/","id":380541906,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/15/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2023-12-12T08:22:24.920546-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-12T08:22:24.924557-08:00","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":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016468760","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-12-12T08:22:24.905752-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-12T08:22:24.909371-08:00","date_filed":"2023-12-12","time_filed":"09:41:35","entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-12-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":40,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/365735572/","id":365735572,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/372654838/","id":372654838,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/12/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2023-09-25T07:19:25.454086-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-25T07:19:25.458276-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016299118","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-09-25T07:19:25.438268-07:00","date_modified":"2023-09-25T07:19:25.443608-07:00","date_filed":"2023-09-25","time_filed":"09:08:32","entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-09-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":31,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/362725599/","id":362725599,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/369426222/","id":369426222,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/9/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2023-08-23T06:22:49.715221-07:00","date_modified":"2023-08-24T05:09:09.895896-07:00","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":"177016229143","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Status Report Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-08-23T06:22:49.706016-07:00","date_modified":"2023-08-24T05:09:09.889924-07:00","date_filed":"2023-08-23","time_filed":"07:31:23","entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":24,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/360552908/","id":360552908,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/367163713/","id":367163713,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-08-02T15:26:03.733401-07:00","date_modified":"2023-08-03T21:18:57.413553-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-08-02T15:26:03.730044-07:00","date_modified":"2023-08-03T21:18:57.404926-07:00","date_filed":"2023-08-02","time_filed":"16:42:23","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-08-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/356217248/","id":356217248,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67567768/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/362744888/","id":362744888,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67567768/1/bahamas-laguna-azure-llc-v-city-of-royse-city-texas/","date_created":"2023-07-07T13:23:11.090160-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-01T07:05:03.032182-07:00","sha1":"202ef5c3ee90d0836e694dc63b1d9665c93724f3","page_count":15,"file_size":216282,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827.1.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827/gov.uscourts.txnd.378827.1.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  DALLAS DIVISION\n\nBAHAMAS LAGUNA AZURE, LLC,                     \u00a7\n    Plaintiff,                                 \u00a7\n                                               \u00a7\nvs.                                            \u00a7   CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________\n                                               \u00a7\nCITY OF ROYSE CITY,                            \u00a7      Jury Demanded\n      Defendant.                               \u00a7\n\n                            PLAINTIFF\u2019S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT\n\n        Plaintiff Bahamas Laguna Azure, LLC (\u201cBahamas\u201d), files its Original Complaint against\n\nthe City of Royse City (\u201cCity\u201d):\n\n                                            INTRODUCTION\n\n        1.      This civil action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71983 and 1988, to redress the\n\nCity\u2019s unlawful retaliation against Bahamas for exercising its First Amendment right to petition\n\ngovernment for redress of its grievances.\n\n        2.      Bahamas owns and is attempting to develop certain property (the \u201cBahamas\n\nProperty\u201d) located within the City\u2019s corporate limits and within its extraterritorial jurisdiction\n\n(\u201cETJ\u201d).\n\n        3.      Development of the Bahamas Property requires Bahamas to secure water and sewer\n\nutility service and to plat its property.\n\n        4.      Under Texas law, Bahamas has the right to obtain the requisite utility services from\n\nthe City pursuant to City Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (\u201cCCNs\u201d) or, if the City\n\nrefuses to provide them, to provide those services for itself through other lawful means. Either\n\nroute requires that the City communicate with Bahamas about, and act upon, Bahamas\u2019\n\ndevelopment requests.\n\n        5.      Under current Texas law, to proceed with development of its property, Bahamas is\n\nrequired to plat its property in accordance with the City\u2019s subdivision ordinance.\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 1\n\f       6.      In a circular fashion, the City\u2019s subdivision ordinance requires that Bahamas\n\nsimultaneously: (a) obtain final plat approval of the Bahamas Property before the City will provide\n\nBahamas with water and sewer service under the City CCNs; and (b) demonstrate that adequate\n\nwater and sewer capacity exists to serve the Bahamas Property, before Bahamas\u2019 final plat can be\n\napproved.\n\n       7.      The City purports to implement its development ordinances and requirements for\n\nproperty within its ETJ through City staff, based upon various unwritten policies and procedures\n\nwhich the City does not publish and which it has actively concealed from Bahamas.\n\n       8.      According to the City, when a property owner seeks to develop property within the\n\nCity\u2019s ETJ, the City\u2019s ordinary custom, policy, and practice is to engage in a collaborative process\n\ninvolving: (a) a determination whether the property is located within the City\u2019s CCN service area;\n\n(b) a dialogue to discuss what utility infrastructure may be required to comply with the City\u2019s\n\nsubdivision ordinance; and (c) the negotiation and entry into a service agreement.\n\n       9.      The City admits that no development in its ETJ has ever obtained final plat approval\n\n(and utility services under the City CCNs), without the City engaging in the collaborative process\n\ndescribed in Paragraph 8.\n\n       10.     After more than a year of unsuccessful attempts to obtain information from the City\n\nconcerning its various unwritten customs, policies, and practices for obtaining water and sewer\n\nutility services under the City CCNs, and as an alternative path to obtain to obtain the requisite\n\nservices necessary for it to develop the Bahamas Property, Bahamas exercised its constitutionally-\n\nprotected right to petition for redress, by filing state judicial and administrative proceedings to\n\nobtain the requisite information and to compel the City to comply with its statutory obligations or\n\nto pursue other lawful alternatives for service.\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 2\n\f         11.   Specifically, Bahamas filed: (a) a petition for pre-suit discovery in Rockwall\n\nCounty District Court pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 202, to obtain information about what the City\n\ncontended Bahamas must do to obtain utility services pursuant to the City CCNs; (b) an application\n\nwith the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (\u201cTCEQ\u201d) for a wastewater permit to\n\nprovide service to its property; (c) administrative proceedings with the Texas Public Utility\n\nCommission (\u201cPUC\u201d), to compel the City to honor its obligations under its CCNs; (d) an\n\nadministrative proceeding before the TCEQ, for authority to form a municipal utility district to\n\nprovide certain utility services; and (e) a petition with the City seeking to deannex certain Bahamas\n\nproperty located within the City\u2019s corporate limits (collectively, \u201cthe Petitioning Conduct\u201d).\n\n         12.   Because of Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct, and in retaliation for Bahamas\n\nexercising its constitutionally-protected rights of access to the Texas courts and administrative\n\nagencies, the City: (a) sued Bahamas and two of its corporate officials, disclaiming that Bahamas\n\nhad any right to the information or relief it sought; and (b) refused to engage with Bahamas in the\n\ncollaborative process that, under the City\u2019s unwritten policies and procedures, the City admits is a\n\ncondition precedent to obtain plat approval (and the corresponding utility service required for plat\n\napproval).\n\n         13.   The City\u2019s conduct interferes with Bahamas\u2019 First Amendment right to petition\n\nTexas courts and administrative agencies for redress of Bahamas\u2019 various grievances against the\n\nCity and has caused, and continues to cause, Bahamas to incur damages, costs, expenses, and\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees compensable under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71983 and 1988.\n\n                                            PARTIES\n\n         14.   Plaintiff Bahamas Laguna Azure, LLC, is a Wyoming limited liability company\n\nwith its principal place of business located at 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas\n\n75201.\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 3\n\f       15.      Defendant City of Royse City is a Texas home-rule municipal corporation with its\n\nprincipal office in Royse City, Texas. The City may be served by delivering a copy of the summons\n\nand of the complaint to the City Secretary, 305 N. Arch Street, Royse City, Texas 75189.\n\n                                 JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n       16.      The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71331, because this is a civil action\n\narising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.\n\n       17.      The Court also has jurisdiction over this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71343(a)(3) and\n\n(a)(4), to redress the City\u2019s deprivation of Bahamas\u2019 First Amendment rights under color of law,\n\nordinance, regulation, or custom.\n\n       18.      Venue is proper in this District and Division under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71391(b)(1) and (2)\n\nbecause the City is a municipal corporation that lies within this District and Division and a\n\nsubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Bahamas\u2019 claims occurred in this District\n\nand Division.\n\n                                    FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\nA.     The Bahamas Development.\n\n       19.      Bahamas owns and is developing the Bahamas Property \u2013 approximately 541.94\n\nacres of property located generally south of the City in Rockwall County. The Bahamas Property\n\nincludes 111.311 acres inside the City\u2019s corporate limits and 430.626 acres outside the City\u2019s\n\ncorporate limits but within the City\u2019s ETJ.\n\n       20.      All of the Bahamas Property is located within areas covered by City CCNs for water\n\nand wastewater service.\n\n       21.      Under Texas law, Bahamas has statutory rights either to obtain the requisite utility\n\nservices from the City under the CCNs or, if the City refuses to provide those services, to provide\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 4\n\fthem for itself through other lawful means. Either route requires that the City communicate with\n\nBahamas about, and act upon, Bahamas\u2019 development requests.\n\nB.      The City\u2019s Unwritten Policies for Implementing its Development Ordinances.\n\n        22.     Under the City\u2019s utility ordinance, a property owner cannot obtain water or sanitary\n\nsewer service under the City\u2019s CCNs unless and until the City has approved a final plat for the\n\nproperty.\n\n        23.     However, under the City\u2019s subdivision ordinance, a property owner cannot obtain\n\na final plat for a development unless and until it has demonstrated the adequacy of water and sewer\n\nsystem capacity to service the proposed development site.\n\n        24.     The prevalent municipal standard and practice by which a Texas property owner\n\ndemonstrates as part of the platting process that sufficient future utility capacity will be in place to\n\nservice a proposed development, is to request and obtain from a utility provider what is commonly\n\nreferred to as a \u201cWill Serve\u201d letter. A \u201cWill Serve\u201d letter evidences that a utility provider will have\n\nsufficient utility capacity to serve a proposed development and that, subject to whatever conditions\n\nmay be stated in the letter, the utility provider commits to do so.\n\n        25.     The City, however, does not follow the prevalent municipal standard and practice\n\nfor issuing utility service commitments.\n\n        26.     Instead, the City has an unwritten and undisclosed municipal policy that: (a) it will\n\nnot provide a property owner with a \u201cWill Serve\u201d letter (or utility commitment); (b) it will not\n\nrespond to any utility request that it interprets to be a request for a future utility commitment or a\n\n\u201cWill Serve\u201d letter; and (c) it does not disclose to property owners who seek \u201cWill Serve\u201d letters\n\nor utility commitments either that it has a policy against issuing any such commitment or that it\n\nalso has a policy of not responding to any such request.\n\n        27.     The City claims that it follows an unwritten and \u201ccase-specific\u201d practice of\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 5\n\frequiring a property owner/developer who seeks utility services under the City\u2019s CCNs to engage\n\nin a dialogue with the City Engineer and certain other City staff about a proposed development\u2019s\n\nprojected water and sewer requirements and the City\u2019s present and future capacity to fulfill those\n\nrequirements.\n\n       28.      The City Engineer makes the final determination whether City water and sanitary\n\nsewer systems are capable of handling the density required by a developer\u2019s service request and\n\nwhether a developer will or will not receive water and sewer service under City CCNs.\n\n       29.      The City has no written standards or published policies which govern the City\n\nEngineer\u2019s review and assessment of a property owner\u2019s request for water or sewer service.\n\nInstead, the City Engineer and City staff reviews all such requests on a case-by-case basis.\n\n       30.      Assuming that the City participates in the collaborative dialogue with a property\n\nowner that it claims is its customary practice and condition for obtaining final plat approval (and\n\nsatisfaction of the requirement to demonstrate the adequacy of future utility services), the City\n\nrequires a property owner to enter into a service agreement with terms acceptable to the City.\n\n       31.      The City\u2019s policy and practice of following unwritten policies and procedures to\n\nrespond to requests for utility services on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis effectively affords the\n\nCity an absolute veto right over any proposed development that does not satisfy the City \u2013\n\nregardless of however arbitrary or capricious the City\u2019s demands may be.\n\n       32.      If the City refuses to engage in a collaborative dialogue with a property owner about\n\nthe required level of utility service, and refuses to enter into a service agreement, a property owner\n\ncannot plat its property and, consequently, cannot develop its property.\n\n       33.      That is precisely what has happened here.\n\n       34.      Once Bahamas initiated judicial and administrative proceedings regarding its utility\n\nservice and development requests, and because Bahamas engaged in its Petitioning Conduct, the\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 6\n\fCity sued Bahamas and refused to engage with Bahamas in the collaborative process that, under\n\nthe City\u2019s unwritten policies and procedures, the City admits is a condition precedent for a property\n\nowner to obtain plat approval (and the corresponding utility service required for plat approval).\n\n       35.     The actions by the City in suing Bahamas and refusing to engage with Bahamas in\n\na collaborative dialogue regarding Bahamas\u2019 desired development of the Bahamas Property is\n\nretaliatory conduct pursuant to a municipal custom, policy, and practice directed and authorized\n\nby its City Council, City Attorney and/or other City legal counsel.\n\nC.     Bahamas\u2019 Water and Sewer Commitment Request to the City.\n\n       36.     On March 3, 2022, Bahamas submitted a Request for Water and Sanitary Sewer\n\nCommitment to the City (the \u201c2022 Request\u201d).\n\n       37.     On multiple occasions thereafter, Bahamas sought updates from the City about the\n\nstatus of its pending 2022 Request, but the City did not: (a) respond to the 2022 Request; (b)\n\ndisclose to Bahamas that the City considered the 2022 Request to be a request for a \u201cWill Serve\u201d\n\nletter and that under the City\u2019s unwritten policies, the City would not grant a \u201cWill Serve\u201d request;\n\n(c) disclose to Bahamas that under its unwritten policies, the City would not respond to such a\n\nrequest; or (d) disclose to Bahamas that under its unwritten policies, Bahamas would be expected\n\nto engage in a collaborative dialogue initiated by the City and be required to enter into a service\n\nagreement containing terms satisfactory to the City.\n\nD.     Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct Related to Its 2022 Request.\n\n       38.     On July 1, 2022, Bahamas filed an application for a TCEQ wastewater permit to\n\nprovide service to its property (the \u201cTCEQ Permit Application\u201d).\n\n       39.     On September 8, 2022, due to the City\u2019s refusal to act upon or respond to the 2022\n\nRequest, Bahamas filed a TEX. R. CIV. P. 202 petition in Rockwall County District Court, seeking\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 7\n\fto obtain information about the rationale for the City\u2019s inaction and refusal to communicate about\n\nthe 2022 Request (the \u201cRule 202 Petition\u201d).\n\n       40.     On September 14, 2022, Bahamas filed a PUC complaint, alleging City impairment\n\nof water and sanitary sewer service, based upon the City\u2019s refusal or failure to commit to providing\n\nretail water service and retail wastewater service to the Bahamas Property within the territory\n\ncovered by the City\u2019s CCNs (the \u201cPUC Complaint\u201d).\n\n       41.     On September 14, 2022, Bahamas petitioned the TCEQ to create Rockwall County\n\nMunicipal Utility District No. 11 (the \u201cTCEQ Petition\u201d), to facilitate Bahamas\u2019 future ability to\n\nprovide the requisite utility services to its property should the City continue to refuse to do so.\n\nE.     The City\u2019s Suit against Bahamas and Refusal to Process Bahamas\u2019 2022 Request and\n       2023 Request Due to Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct.\n\n       42.     In retaliation for Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct, on November 3, 2022, the City\n\nsued Bahamas and two of its corporate officials in Texas state court, disclaiming that Bahamas\n\nhad any right to the information or relief it sought concerning the development of its property.\n\n       43.     Pursuant to its unannounced municipal policy of not processing development\n\nrequests once the City became adverse to a property owner in judicial or administrative\n\nproceedings, after Bahamas engaged in its Petitioning Conduct, , City staff did not engage with\n\nBahamas on its development requests.\n\n       44.     The City, however, did not inform Bahamas that, because of its Petitioning\n\nConduct, the City would not communicate with Bahamas about its development requests or take\n\nany actions on any such requests.\n\n       45.     Not until mid-November 2022, did the City reveal in a filing with the PUC what it\n\nclaimed were its previously undisclosed procedures for processing inquiries from property owners\n\nabout water and sewer utility services under the City CCNs.\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 8\n\f        46.     On November 18, 2022, the City formally responded to the PUC Complaint,\n\nclaiming for the first time that \u201cit is not the policy of the City to issue \u2018Will Serve\u2019 letters,\u201d (even\n\nthough Bahamas\u2019 2022 Request had been submitted on March 3, 2022 \u2013 eight months earlier) and\n\nthat Bahamas had not followed various heretofore undisclosed and unwritten City procedures to\n\nobtain water or sanitary sewer services from the City. According to the City, the \u201ctypical\n\nprocedure\u201d it follows when it receives a utility service request is to: \u201c(i) require a CCN check to\n\nensure that the property to be served is within the City\u2019s CCN service area; (ii) engage in pre-\n\napplication meetings with the applicant to discuss what utility infrastructure will be needed in order\n\nto connect to the City\u2019s existing facilities, in accordance with the City\u2019s subdivision regulations;\n\nand then (iii) negotiate and enter into a service agreement.\u201d Per the City, under its unwritten and\n\npreviously-undisclosed procedure, \u201c[t]hen, and only then, service capacity may be reserved by the\n\napplicant.\u201d\n\n        47.     Conspicuously absent from the City\u2019s PUC response was any disclosure that: (a)\n\nwhen a property owner seeks legal relief from a judicial or administrative body (like the PUC), as\n\na matter of municipal policy the City stops processing utility service requests under its \u201ctypical\n\nprocedure\u201d; (b) the City\u2019s supposed \u201ctypical procedure\u201d for processing utility service requests is\n\nan unwritten practice that is nowhere published and is applied on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis;\n\n(c) the City has an unwritten and undisclosed policy of neither granting nor responding to what the\n\nCity considers to be a \u201cWill Serve\u201d letter request; and (d) the City has no procedure for accepting\n\nor evaluating any application for water or sewer utility service under its CCNs, because no such\n\napplication exists for what it terms \u201cnon-standard\u201d service requests.\n\n        48.     On November 30, 2022, Bahamas and the City met to discuss various development\n\nissues related to the Bahamas Property, but the City still refused to engage with Bahamas or act\n\non the 2022 Request.\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 9\n\f       49.     On January 5, 2023, Bahamas asked the City whether additional information was\n\nnecessary for approval of the 2022 Request, but the City still did not respond.\n\n       50.     On March 10, 2023, the City formally responded to the TCEQ Petition, claiming\n\nfor the first time that Bahamas had not provided \u201ca reliable, consistent quantity of water and sewer\n\nservice needed for [the Bahamas Property].\u201d\n\n       51.     Conspicuously absent from City\u2019s TCEQ response was any disclosure that,\n\npursuant to municipal policy, the City earlier had stopped all processing of the 2022 Request once\n\nBahamas filed the TCEQ Permit Application, Rule 202 Petition, the PUC Complaint, and the\n\nTCEQ Petition, and City staff had stopped engaging with Bahamas on the 2022 Request.\n\n       52.     On May 11, 2023, to address and resolve whatever uncertainty the City feigned\n\nabout the quantity of water and sewer service Bahamas desired, Bahamas resubmitted its water\n\nand sanitary sewer service request (the \u201c2023 Request\u201d).\n\n       53.     In its 2023 Request, Bahamas recited the number of reliable consistent quality\n\nequivalents needed for the Bahamas Property and made no reference to any request for a supposed\n\n\u201cWill Serve\u201d letter. Bahamas also attached an updated development plan.\n\n       54.     The City still has not taken any action on either the 2022 Request or the 2023\n\nRequest, although it has recently represented that it will meet with Bahamas Because of the City\u2019s\n\nrepeated obfuscation, delays and retaliatory conduct, however, Bahamas has already sustained\n\ndamages and incurred needless expenses as the direct result of the City\u2019s retaliatory conduct.\n\nF.     The City Has Retaliated against Bahamas for Exercising Its First Amendment Rights.\n\n       55.     The City\u2019s persistent inaction, failure to communicate, failure to disclose, and\n\nactive concealment of what it now contends after-the-fact are its various unwritten policies and\n\nprocedures for obtaining water and utility service prompted Bahamas to file the TCEQ Permit\n\nApplication, Rule 202 Petition, PUC Complaint, and TCEQ Petition, to obtain redress.\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 10\n\f       56.     Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct is conduct protected under the First Amendment to\n\nthe United States Constitution, specifically including the rights of access to the courts and relevant\n\nadministrative agencies.\n\n       57.     In direct response to and in retaliation for Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct, pursuant\n\nto a municipal custom, policy, and practice directed and authorized by its City Attorney and/or\n\nother City legal counsel, the City refused to respond to the 2022 Request, refused to respond to the\n\n2023 Request, and refused to engage in what the City claims is its \u201ctypical procedure\u201d for\n\nprocessing utility service requests.\n\n       58.     In so doing, the City has unlawfully retaliated against Bahamas for Bahamas\u2019\n\nexercise of its First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of its grievances.\n\nG.     The City Is a \u201cPerson\u201d under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983.\n\n       59.     The City is a suable person under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983.\n\n       60.     At all relevant times, the City officials and staff who have refused to respond to\n\nBahamas\u2019 2022 Request and 2023 Request, and who have refused to engage in what the City now\n\nclaims is its \u201ctypical procedure\u201d for processing utility service requests under the City CCNs\n\n(including but not limited to the City Attorney or other City legal counsel and City Engineer), were\n\nmunicipal officials, agents, and/or employees of the City and duly authorized to take those actions\n\non the City\u2019s behalf.\n\n       61.     The referenced municipal officials were clothed by the City with the authority to\n\nmake official municipal government policy and decisions with respect to the provision of utility\n\nservices under the City\u2019s CCNs, and to implement such policies and decisions.\n\n       62.     The retaliatory conduct by City officials therefore represents the City\u2019s official\n\ngovernmental policy \u2013 albeit unwritten.\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 11\n\f                                       CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n                 Civil Action under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 for Deprivation of Bahamas\u2019\n          First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances\n\n          63.    Bahamas incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if specifically restated at length\n\nherein.\n\n          64.    The City\u2019s deprivation of Bahamas\u2019 right to petition violates 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983.\n\n          65.    At all relevant times, Bahamas possessed a clearly-established right to petition the\n\ngovernment for redress of its grievances under the First Amendment to the United States\n\nConstitution.\n\n          66.    At all relevant times, Bahamas\u2019 right to petition the government for redress of its\n\ngrievances encompassed its right to avail itself of: (a) the Texas state courts, by filing the Rule 202\n\nPetition in Rockwall County District Court on September 8, 2022, and (b) the Texas administrative\n\nagencies, by filing the TCEQ Permit Application on July 1, 2002 and the PUC Complaint and the\n\nTCEQ Petition on September 14, 2022.\n\n          67.    The City has intentionally interfered with and violated Bahamas\u2019 right to petition\n\nthe government for redress of its grievances by deliberately stopping consideration of, and refusing\n\nto process, Bahamas\u2019 development requests and requests for utility services, because of Bahamas\u2019\n\nPetitioning Conduct.\n\n          68.    The City\u2019s interference with Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct is evidenced, among\n\nother things, by the fact that the City Engineer \u2013 who the City has identified as its final policymaker\n\nregarding the adequacy of water and sanitary sewer service capacity for a development site like\n\nthe Bahamas Property \u2013 has testified that, pursuant to City policy promulgated by the City Attorney\n\nand/or the City\u2019s other legal counsel, because of Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct, she and City staff\n\nstopped any efforts to follow the City\u2019s typical procedure for processing utility requests under the\n\nCity CCNs, with respect to the Bahamas Property.\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 12\n\f       69.     The City\u2019s refusal to follow its typical procedure for processing Bahamas\u2019 request\n\nfor utility service under the City CCNs, because of Bahamas\u2019 Petitioning Conduct, is a retaliatory\n\naction violative of Bahamas\u2019 First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of its\n\ngrievances.\n\n       70.     The City\u2019s retaliatory actions, which have caused Bahamas\u2019 injury, are the result of\n\nofficial City policy, custom and practice, which has been the moving force for the violation of\n\nBahamas\u2019 constitutional rights.\n\n       71.     The City\u2019s retaliatory actions reflect the City\u2019s official policy, custom and practice,\n\nas made and implemented by: (a) its City Council through formal action on October 25, 2022,\n\nwhen in a public meeting the City Council expressly authorized the City Attorney to take \u201cany\n\nlegal action necessary to defend against the claims put forth by Bahamas;\u201d as well as (b) those\n\nwhose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, which includes both the City\n\nAttorney and City Engineer.\n\n       72.     Either the conduct by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and City staff is being\n\ncarried out pursuant to the official City policy, expressly authorized by City Council, in which\n\nevent it represents the official municipal policy, custom and practice of the City, for which the\n\nCity is liable under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983; or, if not, then the conduct by the City Attorney, City\n\nEngineer and City staff, which violates Bahamas\u2019 clearly-established constitutional right to\n\npetition under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is ultra vires, those\n\nindividual public officials are not entitled to immunity for their actions, and they ultimately may\n\nbe held personally liable for their retaliatory conduct.\n\n       73.     As a result of the City\u2019s retaliatory conduct, Bahamas has been unduly delayed and\n\nunable to proceed with its development of the Bahamas Property, which has caused it to sustain\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 13\n\fdamages including, but not limited to, lost or foregone development profits, increased costs, and\n\nexpenses, including fees attributable to its professional advisors.\n\n        74.    All of Bahamas\u2019 damages have been proximately caused by the conduct of City\n\nofficials, agents, and/or employees acting in their official capacities, under color of law and\n\npursuant to official municipal policies, customs, and/or practices.\n\n        75.    In addition to compensatory damages, Bahamas seeks a declaratory judgment that\n\nthe City has violated its First Amendment right to petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a72201(a) and\n\n2202.\n\n        76.    Bahamas also seeks reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees as part of the costs authorized to the\n\nprevailing party in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983, predicated upon 42 U.S.C. \u00a71988.\n\n                                         JURY DEMAND\n\n        77.    Bahamas demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.\n\n                                             PRAYER\n\n        78.    Bahamas requests the following relief:\n\n               a. A declaration that the City deprived Bahamas of Bahamas\u2019 First Amendment\n                  right to petition the government for redress of grievances;\n\n               b. Compensatory damages in the amount proven at trial;\n\n               c. Reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a71988(b);\n\n               d. Any and all expert fees incurred by Bahamas, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a71988(c);\n                  and\n\n               e. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 14\n\f                               Respectfully submitted,\n                               /s/ Barry Abrams\n                               Barry Abrams\n                               Attorney-in-Charge\n                               Texas Bar No. 00822700\n                               BLANK ROME LLP\n                               717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400\n                               Houston, Texas 77002\n                               (713) 228-6601\n                               (713) 228-6605 (fax)\n                               barry.abrams@blankrome.com\n\n\n                               Jeffrey M. Tillotson\n                               Texas Bar 20039200\n                               TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON\n                               1201 Main Street, Suite 1300\n                               Dallas, Texas 75202\n                               (214) 382-3040\n                               jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com\n\n                               ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF\n                               BAHAMAS LAGUNA AZURE, LLC\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL COMPLAINT \u2013 PAGE 15\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-31T20:51:02.790209-07:00","document_number":"1","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016122259","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-07-07T13:23:11.084619-07:00","date_modified":"2023-07-07T13:23:11.086473-07:00","date_filed":"2023-07-07","time_filed":"15:01:51","entry_number":1,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-07-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":6,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=67567768&page_size=40"}