{"cached_at":"2026-10-22T10:43:05.997539+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68133189","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","id":68133189,"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/10301901/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/352/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-01-03T11:22:56.787584-08:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T17:43:57.678563-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jane J Boyle","referred_to_str":"Brian McKay","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-09-18T00:05:59.275949-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-01-03","date_terminated":"2024-10-22","date_last_filing":"2025-01-10","case_name_short":"Valentine","case_name":"Southwest Marine and General Insurance Company v. Valentine","case_name_full":"","slug":"southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine","docket_number":"3:24-cv-00013","docket_number_core":"2400013","docket_number_raw":"3:24-cv-00013","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"B","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"BW","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"384751","cause":"28:1332 Diversity-Fraud","nature_of_suit":"370 Torts/Pers Prop: Other Fraud","jury_demand":"None","jurisdiction_type":"Diversity","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":"2024-01-03T11:22:56.776898-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13266225/","id":13266225,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","docket_id":68133189,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.279625-08:00","date_modified":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.279633-08:00","name":"Valentine Travel Express LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13266224/","id":13266224,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","docket_id":68133189,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.270478-08:00","date_modified":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.270487-08:00","name":"Tammion Valentine","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13266223/","id":13266223,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8913135/","attorney_id":8913135,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","docket_id":68133189,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8913135/","attorney_id":8913135,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","docket_id":68133189,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","docket_id":68133189,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.233997-08:00","date_modified":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.234005-08:00","name":"Southwest Marine and General Insurance Company","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/413183520/","id":413183520,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/426756110/","id":426756110,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/22/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2025-01-10T12:21:11.390856-08:00","date_modified":"2025-02-10T01:43:14.066288-08:00","sha1":"7a22fbe457da787240fe4da9e7532179d45d10c8","page_count":1,"file_size":90125,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.22.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.22.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 22 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 1 PageID 95\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n DALLAS DIVISION\n\nSOUTHWEST MARINE \u00a7\n& GENERAL INSURANCE \u00a7\nCOMPANY, as assignee and \u00a7\nsubrogee of My Community \u00a7\nCredit Union, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nV. \u00a7 No. 3:24-CV-013-B-BW\n \u00a7\nTAMMION VALENTINE, ET AL, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND\n RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation\n\nin this case. (Dkt. No. 21.) No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed\n\nfindings, conclusions, and recommendation as supplemented for plain error. Finding none, the\n\nCourt ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States\n\nMagistrate Judge that Southwest Marine\u2019s motion for issuance of a writ of garnishment (Dkt. No.\n\n19) should be denied without prejudice.\n SO ORDERED.\n DATE: January 10, 2025.\n\n\n\n\n _________________________________\n JANE J. BOYLE\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n -1-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-01-13T01:49:20.101758-08:00","document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017381621","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-01-10T12:21:11.377359-08:00","date_modified":"2025-02-10T01:43:14.050214-08:00","date_filed":"2025-01-10","time_filed":"14:07:26","entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-01-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":63,"description":" ORDER ACCEPTING 21 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that Southwest Marine's motion for issuance of a writ of garnishment (Dkt. No. 19 ) should be denied without prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 1/10/2025) (axm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/409815729/","id":409815729,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/422340759/","id":422340759,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/20/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-12-02T13:05:42.058554-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-02T13:05:42.063764-08:00","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":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017300730","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Referring Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-12-02T13:05:42.042479-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-02T13:05:42.046157-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-02","time_filed":"14:35:40","entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":57,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/405959264/","id":405959264,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417085329/","id":417085329,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/16/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-10-23T08:29:26.069899-07:00","date_modified":"2024-12-22T02:11:24.376955-08:00","sha1":"16153adb14f30143a3f16f59b8e3fe524bdd3348","page_count":17,"file_size":225044,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.16.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.16.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID 56\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n DALLAS DIVISION\n\n SOUTHWEST MARINE & \u00a7\n GENERAL INSURANCE \u00a7\n COMPANY, as assignee and \u00a7\n subrogee of My Community Credit \u00a7\n Union, \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7 No. 3:24-CV-013-B-BW\n \u00a7\n V. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n TAMMION VALENTINE, ET AL., \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION\n OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n Before the Court are a motion for default judgment against Defendant\n\n Tammion Valentine (Dkt. No. 11), filed by Plaintiff Southwest Marine & General\n\n Insurance Company (\u201cSouthwest Marine\u201d), as assignee and subrogee of My\n\n Community Credit Union, on March 19, 2024, and a motion to dismiss Defendant\n\n Valentine Travel Express LLC (\u201cVTE\u201d) (Dkt. No. 13), filed by Southwest Marine on\n\n July 7, 2024.\n\n United States District Judge Jane J. Boyle referred the case to United States\n\n Magistrate Judge Ren\u00e9e Harris Toliver for pretrial management and\n\n recommendation on case-dispositive motions, but the case was transferred and\n\n reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge on August 23, 2024, by Special Order\n\n 3-354. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 14.) The undersigned enters the following findings of fact,\n\n conclusions of law, and recommendation that Southwest Marine\u2019s motion for default\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID 57\n\n\n\n judgement against Defendant Valentine (Dkt. No. 11) be GRANTED, and its\n\n motion to dismiss Defendant VTE without prejudice (Dkt. No. 13) be GRANTED.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n Southwest Marine filed suit against Valentine and VTE on January 3, 2024.\n\n (See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint (\u201cCompl.\u201d).) Southwest Marine asserts subject matter\n\n jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332 because Southwest Marine and Defendants\n\n (including the member(s) of VTE) are citizens of different states, and the amount in\n\n controversy when accounting for both compensatory damages and punitive damages\n\n exceeds $75,000.00.\n\n According to the Complaint, Valentine is the owner and operator of VTE.\n\n (Compl. \u00b6 4.) Southwest Marine\u2019s insured, My Community Credit Union (\u201cMy\n\n Community\u201d), issued Valentine a credit card (the \u201cCredit Card\u201d) with a credit limit\n\n of $3,400. (Id. \u00b6 8.) Southwest Marine alleges that, from February to September\n\n 2022, Valentine operated a fraudulent kiting scheme whereby she repeatedly charged\n\n expenses to the Credit Card and then arranged sham payment transactions that\n\n would temporarily credit the account long enough to enable more charges. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 8-\n\n 12.) Valentine would then make new charges to the Credit Card before the payments\n\n were returned for insufficient funds. (Id. \u00b6 11.) Southwest Marine alleges that My\n\n Community discovered the fraudulent activity on January 3, 2023, after Valentine\n\n had amassed an unpaid balance due of almost $60,000. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 14-15.) Southwest\n\n Marine further alleges that Valentine ignored My Community\u2019s demands for\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID 58\n\n\n\n repayment and refused to communicate with My Community regarding the debt.\n\n (Id. \u00b6 16.)\n\n Southwest Marine subsequently paid an insurance claim to My Community\n\n due to loss sustained from commercial crime or fraud. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 18-20.)\n\n Southwest Marine asserts standing as both the subrogee and assignee of My\n\n Community. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 21-22.) Southwest Marine filed the instant suit asserting claims\n\n of fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. (Compl. at 4-5.) Southwest Marine\n\n alleges compensatory damages in the principal amount of $59,228.69, plus punitive\n\n damages, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys\u2019 fees, an amount in controversy that\n\n exceeds $75,000.00. (Id. at 6.)\n\n On January 23, 2024, Southwest Marine filed a return of service establishing\n\n that on January 8, 2024, a copy of the Complaint and Summons were \u201cpersonally\n\n deliver[ed] to DEVIN VALENTINE, a co-resident over the age of 16\u201d at Valentine\u2019s\n\n residential address in Balch Springs. (Dkt. No. 5.) There having been no appearance\n\n or answer filed by Valentine, Southwest Marine requested entry of default on\n\n January 31, 2024, which the Clerk of Court entered that same day. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.)\n\n On the following day, District Judge Boyle entered an Order to Show Cause\n\n directing Valentine to explain in writing why she failed to file an answer and warning\n\n her that failure to comply may result in a default judgment against her. (Dkt. No. 8.)\n\n Less than one week later, on February 7, 2024, Valentine filed a response to\n\n Judge Boyle\u2019s order. The response states in full:\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID 59\n\n\n\n I was advised by a co-worker that a[n] email was sent to her with\n some court Papers[.] I\u2019m not even aware of what\u2019s going on and I\u2019m\n having to answer by February the 7[.] I had to email this to my oldest\n daughter because I am not in town. And don\u2019t know who the papers\n were sent to[.] I called the Court office. And they said the papers\n w[ere] given to a minor.\n\n Tammion Valentine\n\n (Dkt. No. 9.) Valentine has not filed an answer or any other document since.\n\n Southwest Marine moved for default judgment on March 19, 2024. (Dkt. No.\n\n 11.) On September 19, 2024, the undersigned again ordered Valentine to show cause\n\n for her failure to file an answer to the complaint and warned Valentine that failure to\n\n comply could result in default judgment. (Dkt. No. 15.) Valentine has not filed any\n\n response to the order.\n\n II. LEGAL STANDARDS\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) governs the entry of a default judgment. A default\n\n judgment is available to a plaintiff who demonstrates the following: (1) the defendant\n\n was served with a summons and the complaint, and a default was entered because\n\n the defendant failed to appear; (2) the defendant is not a minor or an incompetent\n\n person; (3) the defendant is not in the military or subject to the Soldiers and Sailors\n\n Relief Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C. \u00a7 3931; and (4) if the defendant appeared in the case,\n\n the defendant was provided with notice of the default judgment application at least\n\n three days before the hearing. See Arch Ins. Co. v. WM Masters & Assocs., Inc., 3:12-CV-\n\n 2092-M, 2013 WL 145502, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) (citing Twentieth Century\n\n Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070 (D. Ariz. 2006)). In addition,\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID 60\n\n\n\n the plaintiff \u201cmust make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.\u201d TFHSP, LLC Series\n\n 10147 v. U.S. Bank Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n, 3:14-CV-2589-M-BN, 2016 WL 2856006, at *2 (N.D.\n\n Tex. Apr. 18, 2016) (citing Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242\n\n F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2001)).\n\n The Fifth Circuit has set out a three-step process for a plaintiff seeking default\n\n judgment: (1) default by the defendant; (2) entry of default by the Clerk\u2019s office; and\n\n (3) entry of a default judgment by the district court. See N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84\n\n F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Morelia Mex. Rest., Inc.,\n\n 126 F. Supp. 3d 809, 813 (N.D. Tex. 2015). A default occurs when a defendant has\n\n failed to plead or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time required by the\n\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); PharMerica Corp. v.\n\n Paragon Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-196, 2021 WL 9274561, at *2 (N.D.\n\n Tex. Aug. 20, 2021).\n\n \u201c\u2018Default judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules\n\n and resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.\u2019\u201d Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766,\n\n 767 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass\u2019n, 874\n\n F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Arch Ins. Co., 2013 WL 145502, at *2 (citing\n\n Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 1999) (observing\n\n the Fifth Circuit\u2019s general disfavor of default judgments and preference to resolve\n\n cases on their merits). But this policy is \u201ccounterbalanced by considerations of social\n\n goals, justice, and expediency, a weighing process [that] lies largely within the\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID 61\n\n\n\n domain of the trial judge\u2019s discretion.\u201d Rogers, 167 F.3d at 936 (quoting Pelican Prod.\n\n Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted));\n\n see also Merrill Lynch Mortg. Corp. v. Narayan, 908 F.2d 246, 253 (7th Cir. 1990)\n\n (noting that default judgments allow courts to manage their dockets \u201cefficiently and\n\n effectively\u201d).\n\n Moreover, \u201ca party is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right,\n\n even where the defendant is technically in default.\u201d Id. (quoting Ganther v. Ingle, 75\n\n F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996)). \u201cThere must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for\n\n the judgment entered.\u201d Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat\u2019l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200,\n\n 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). Only well-pleaded facts, not conclusions of law, are presumed\n\n to be true. Id. Default judgment \u201cshould not be granted on the claim, without more,\n\n that the defendant had failed to meet a procedural time requirement.\u201d Mason &\n\n Hanger\u2013Silas Mason Co., Inc. v. Metal Trades Council, 726 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1984).\n\n A defaulting defendant is deemed to admit all well-pleaded facts in the\n\n plaintiff's complaint, but not facts that are not well pled or conclusions of law.\n\n Nishimatsu Constr. Co., 515 F.2d at 1206. Typically, damages are not awarded\n\n without a hearing or a demonstration by detailed affidavits establishing the necessary\n\n facts. See United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979). However,\n\n if the amount of damages can be determined with mathematical calculation by\n\n reference to the pleadings and supporting documents, a hearing is unnecessary.\n\n James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID 62\n\n\n\n Courts have developed a three-part analysis to determine whether to enter a\n\n default judgment against a defendant. United States v. 1998 Freightliner Vin #:\n\n 1FUYCZYB3WP886986, 548 F. Supp. 2d 381, 384 (W.D. Tex. 2008). First, in\n\n assessing whether the entry of a default judgment is procedurally warranted, courts\n\n consider several factors, including: (1) whether material issues of fact are at issue;\n\n (2) whether there has been substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default\n\n are clearly established (4) whether the default was caused by a good faith mistake or\n\n excusable neglect; (5) the harshness of a default judgment; and (6) whether the court\n\n would think itself obliged to set aside the default on the defendant\u2019s motion. Lindsey\n\n v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Second, courts assess the\n\n substantive merit of the plaintiff\u2019s pleadings to determine whether there is a sufficient\n\n factual basis for default judgment. See Nishimatsu Constr. Co., 515 F.2d at 1206\n\n (finding that a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show it is entitled to relief).\n\n Third, courts determine what form of relief, if any, the plaintiff should receive. See\n\n 1998 Freightliner, 548 F. Supp. 2d at 384.\n\n III. ANALYSIS\n\n As an initial matter, the undersigned must determine whether Southwest\n\n Marine properly served Valentine. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 4(e)(1) describes the process for serving an individual. Unless federal law\n\n provides otherwise, an individual\u2014other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a\n\n person whose waiver has been filed\u2014may be served in a judicial district of the\n\n United States by \u201cfollowing state law for serving a summons in an action brought in\n 7\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID 63\n\n\n\n courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where\n\n service is made[.]\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Thus, the Court looks to the Texas Rules\n\n of Civil Procedure to determine propriety of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).\n\n Here, the return of service documents establish that the summons and\n\n complaint were delivered on January 8, 2024, to \u201ca co-resident over the age of 16\u201d at\n\n Valentine\u2019s Balch Springs address. (See Dkt. No. 5.) The return of service otherwise\n\n meets the requirements for effective service under Texas law. See Tex. R. Civ P. 106,\n\n 107. Thus, Southwest Marine effectively served Valentine in accordance with both\n\n Federal and Texas law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(1). On the\n\n record before the Court, there is no evidence to rebut the recitations of service (Dkt.\n\n No. 5). See Primate Const., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994). Therefore,\n\n the undersigned finds that Southwest Marine properly served Valentine.\n\n Despite receiving proper service, the Court\u2019s docket and record show that\n\n Valentine has not filed an answer or other responsive pleading \u201cwithin 21 days after\n\n being served with the summons and complaint.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).\n\n Furthermore, Valentine\u2019s only filing in this case constitutes neither an answer nor a\n\n responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Thus, the undersigned also\n\n finds that Valentine failed to timely plead or otherwise respond to the Complaint\n\n under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Based\n\n on the foregoing, the Clerk\u2019s entry of default against Valentine (Dkt. No. 7) was\n\n appropriate.\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID 64\n\n\n\n A. Default Judgment is Procedurally Warranted.\n\n Based on the Lindsey factors, Defendant's motion for default judgment is\n\n procedurally warranted. See Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893. First, there are \u201cno material\n\n issues of fact in dispute,\u201d as Valentine failed to answer the Complaint or otherwise\n\n appear before the Court. Second, Valentine\u2019s failure to respond threatens to\n\n prejudice Southwest Marine\u2019s interests. Third, the grounds for default are clearly\n\n established given that Southwest Marine served Valentine with the Complaint, and\n\n Valentine has failed to answer or otherwise defend despite being given warnings\n\n from this Court that failure to respond could result in default judgment against her.\n\n Fourth, there is no evidence before the Court to indicate that Valentine\u2019s silence is\n\n the result of a \u201cgood faith mistake or excusable neglect.\u201d Fifth, entry of a default\n\n judgment against Valentine will not be unusually harsh as Southwest Marine only\n\n seeks the relief to which it is entitled for the losses incurred by its insured, My\n\n Community. Finally, the Court is not aware of any facts that would obligate the\n\n Court to set aside the default if challenged by Valentine. See Lindsey, 161 F.3d at\n\n 893.\n\n B. Default Judgment is Substantively Warranted.\n\n Where, as here, a default has been entered under Rule 55, \u201cthe factual\n\n allegations of the complaint are taken as true.\u201d Pathway Senior Living LLC v. Pathways\n\n Senior Living LLC, No. 3:15-CV-02607-M, 2016 WL 1059536, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar.\n\n 17, 2016). Valentine, by her default, is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded\n\n allegations in Southwest Marine\u2019s Complaint. Nishimatsu Constr. Co., 515 F.2d at\n\n 9\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID 65\n\n\n\n 1206 (citing Ohio Cent. R.R. Co. v. Cent. Trust Co. of N.Y., 133 U.S. 83 (1889)). A\n\n default judgment is unassailable on the merits but only as to the well-pleaded\n\n allegations that are assumed to be true. Id. As such, the Court must review the\n\n pleadings to determine whether they provide a sufficient basis for Southwest\n\n Marine\u2019s claims for relief. Nishimatsu Constr. Co., 515 F.2d at 1206.\n\n In conducting this analysis, courts look to the pleading requirements set out in\n\n Rule 8(a)(2). See Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 497 (5th Cir.\n\n 2015). Factual allegations in the complaint need only \u201cbe enough to raise a right to\n\n relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the\n\n complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).\u201d Wooten, 788 F.3d at 497 (quoting Bell\n\n Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The pleading must present \u201cmore\n\n than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,\u201d but \u201cdetailed\n\n factual allegations\u201d are not required. Wooten, 788 F.3d at 497 (quoting Ashcroft v.\n\n Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).\n\n This \u201clow threshold\u201d is less rigorous than that under Rule 12(b)(6). Wooten,\n\n 788 F.3d at 498. Recognizing that \u201ca defendant must invoke Rule 12 in order to\n\n avail itself of that Rule's protections, [while] a default is the product of a defendant\u2019s\n\n inaction,\u201d the Fifth Circuit has \u201cdecline[d] to import Rule 12 standards into the\n\n default-judgment context.\u201d Wooten, 788 F.3d at 498 n.3.\n\n 1. Default judgment is appropriate for Southwest Marine\u2019s fraud claim.\n\n For common law fraud, Plaintiff must show \u201c(1) a material misrepresentation;\n\n (2) that is false; (3) made with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to its truth;\n 10\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID 66\n\n\n\n (4) made with the intention that it should be acted upon by another party; (5) relied\n\n upon by the other party; and (6) causing injury.\u201d Flaherty & Crumrine Income Fund,\n\n Inc. v. TXU Corp., 565 F.3d 200, 212-13 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (discussing\n\n Texas law). But \u201c[i]n federal court, fraud claims must also satisfy the heightened\n\n pleading standard set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).\u201d Edge Adhesives,\n\n Inc. v. Sharpe Concepts, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-405-O, 2015 WL 12743618, at *3-4 (N.D.\n\n Tex. Aug. 31, 2015) (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (\u201cIn alleging\n\n fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting\n\n fraud or mistake.\u201d). The Fifth Circuit interprets Rule 9(b) to require, at minimum\n\n \u201cspecificity as to the statements (or omissions) considered to be fraudulent, the\n\n speaker, when and why the statements were made, and an explanation of why they\n\n were fraudulent.\u201d Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005); see also\n\n Williams v. WMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 9(b) requires\n\n \u201c\u2018the who, what, when, where, and how\u2019 to be laid out\u201d) (citations omitted).\n\n Southwest Marine\u2019s Complaint alleges fraud and states that Valentine\n\n represented to My Community that the Credit Card charges, and the subsequent\n\n repayments were legitimate transactions, but her representations were false because\n\n she was operating a kiting scheme to misappropriate funds with no intention of\n\n repayment. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 26, 27.) The Complaint further alleges that Valentine\u2019s\n\n misrepresentations regarding the legitimacy of the charges and the purported\n\n repayments returned due to insufficient funds were made with the intent to mislead\n\n My Community so that Valentine could continue to charge the Credit Card and\n 11\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID 67\n\n\n\n misappropriate additional funds from My Community. (Id. \u00b6 28.) Finally, the\n\n Complaint alleges that My Community reasonably relied upon Valentine\u2019s false\n\n representations to its detriment, suffering a loss in the principal amount of\n\n $59,228.69. (Id. \u00b6 29, 31.)\n\n The Affidavit of Dawn Sedgwick (\u201cSedgwick Aff.\u201d) (Dkt. No. 11-2), offered\n\n by Southwest Marine in support of the motion, provides additional factual support\n\n for Southwest Marine\u2019s fraud claim. For example, Sedgewick, a Senior Examiner in\n\n the Subrogation Department for Southwest Marine, stated that she \u201cpersonally\n\n investigated and confirmed the allegations\u201d stated in the Complaint. (See Sedgwick\n\n Aff. \u00b6 3.) Her affidavit further states that My Community, a financial institution\n\n existing under the laws of Texas, issued Valentine a credit card account ending in\n\n 6869 with a $3,400.00 credit limit. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 5, 6.) Sedgewick also outlined the\n\n particulars of the kiting scheme, explaining that, between February 7, 2022, and\n\n September 26, 2022, Valentine repeatedly made charges on the Credit Card to VTE\n\n and other companies and then purported to make payments through Venmo and\n\n other sources in order to permit new charges, but those payments eventually would\n\n be returned due to insufficient funds. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 7-10.) According to Sedgewick,\n\n Valentine did this on 34 separate occasions until January 3, 2023, when her scheme\n\n was discovered during a review of delinquent accounts. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 11, 12.)\n\n These allegations meet the requisite standard to plead a claim for fraud, as\n\n they detail \u201cthe who, what, when, where, and how\u201d of the fraud. See Williams, 112\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID 68\n\n\n\n F.3d at 179. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Southwest Marine pleaded\n\n Valentine\u2019s fraudulent representations with the requisite specificity.\n\n 2. Default judgment is appropriate for Southwest Marine\u2019s conversion\n claim.\n\n Southwest Marine\u2019s conversion claim against Valentine is also adequately\n\n pleaded. Texas law defines conversion as the \u201cunauthorized and wrongful\n\n assumption and exercise of dominion and control over the personal property of\n\n another, to the exclusion of or inconsistent with the owner's rights[.]\u201d Hyde & Hyde,\n\n Inc. v. Mount Franklin Foods, L.L.C., 523 F. App\u2019x 301, 304 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting\n\n Waisath v. Lack\u2019s Stores, Inc., 474 S.W.2d 444, 447 (Tex. 1971)). \u201cThe plaintiff must\n\n prove that: (1) he legally possessed the property or was entitled to it; (2) the\n\n defendant wrongfully exercised dominion and control over the property, excluding\n\n the plaintiff; (3) the plaintiff demanded the property\u2019s return; and (4) the defendant\n\n refused.\u201d Id. (quoting Arthur W. Tifford, PA v. Tandem Energy Corp., 562 F.3d 699,\n\n 705 (5th Cir. 2009)). Those elements are established here.\n\n Southwest Marine alleges that: (1) My Community was the rightful possessor\n\n and owner of funds used by Valentine to make credit card purchases; (2) Valentine\n\n had no right to take or to possess My Community\u2019s funds and deprived My\n\n Community of its rightful possession and ownership of its funds; (3) My Community\n\n demanded return of the funds; and (4) Valentine refused to return the funds to My\n\n Community or to Southwest Marine. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 33-36.) Valentine has not\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID 69\n\n\n\n appeared to dispute these elements. Therefore, Southwest Marine has stated a claim\n\n for conversion of funds belonging to My Community.\n\n 3. Default judgment is appropriate for Southwest Marine\u2019s unjust\n enrichment claim.\n\n \u201cUnder Texas law an unjust enrichment claim requires showing that one party\n\n \u2018has obtained a benefit from another by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue\n\n advantage.\u2019\u201d Digital Drilling Data, Systems, L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services, Inc., 965 F.3d\n\n 365, 379-80 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832\n\n S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992)). Furthermore, \u201csome observers . . . have suggested\n\n Texas law actually recognizes two theories or species of unjust enrichment: one for\n\n passive receipt of a benefit that would be unconscionable to retain, and another for\n\n wrongfully securing a benefit.\u201d Advarra Tech. Sols., Inc. v. N. Tex. Clinical Trials, LLC,\n\n No. 4:22-CV-001049-O, 2023 WL 6219411, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2023), adopted,\n\n 2023 WL 6217744 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2023) (quoting Digital Drilling Data, Systems,\n\n 965 F.3d at 38); see also U.S. for Use of M-Co Constr., Inc. v. Shipco General, Inc., 814\n\n F.2d 1011, 1014 (5th Cir. 1987).\n\n Southwest Marine\u2019s unjust enrichment pleadings satisfy Rule 8(a)\u2019s pleading\n\n requirements. The Complaint alleges unjust enrichment and states facts showing\n\n that Valentine: (1) obtained a benefit from My Community in an amount no less\n\n than $59,228.69; (2) Valentine\u2019s retention of such benefits without disgorgement\n\n violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience; (3)\n\n despite demand, Valentine has not returned the funds to My Community or\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID 70\n\n\n\n Southwest Marine; and (4) as a result of Valentine\u2019s unjust enrichment, My\n\n Community, and thus Southwest Marine, suffered a loss in the principal amount of\n\n $59,228.69.\n\n The Affidavit of Ms. Sedgwick avers that Valentine repeatedly made charges\n\n to the Credit Card and initiated payments through Venmo and other sources to\n\n reduce or eliminate the credit card balance to once again permit new charges; but\n\n those payments were later returned due to insufficient funds. (See Sedgewick Aff. \u00b6\u00b6\n\n 7-10.) Further, Valentine did this on 34 separate occasions between February 7,\n\n 2022, and September 26, 2022, until a review of delinquent accounts by My\n\n Community exposed her scheme on January 3, 2023. (Id. at \u00b6\u00b6 7, 11, 12.)\n\n Therefore, Southwest Marine has sufficiently pleaded its unjust enrichment claim.\n\n C. Southwest Marine is entitled to $59,228.69 in damages.\n\n Having concluded default judgment is proper, the undersigned must now\n\n \u201cdetermine what form of relief, if any, the plaintiff should receive.\u201d Morelia, 126 F.\n\n Supp. 3d at 814. This is the only step in the inquiry where the Court does not\n\n assume the pleadings\u2019 truth. See, e.g., Advarra, 2023 WL 6219411, at *2; Shipco, 814\n\n F.2d at 1014 (\u201cAfter a default judgment, the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual\n\n allegations are taken as true, except regarding damages.\u201d). Thus, a plaintiff cannot\n\n summarily provide the Court with figures for damages or attorney's fees without\n\n explanation. Rather, it must \u201cestablish[ ] the necessary facts,\u201d either through\n\n detailed affidavits or an evidentiary hearing, to make the amount \u201ccapable of\n\n mathematical calculation.\u201d United Artists, 605 F.2d at 857. Although Southwest\n\n 15\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID 71\n\n\n\n Marine initially sought compensatory damages in the amount of $59,228.69, plus\n\n punitive damages, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys\u2019 fees (Compl. at 6), it now\n\n seeks only the principal amount of $59,228.69 (Dkt. No. 11 at \u00b6 15; Sedgewick Aff.\n\n at \u00b6 25) and waives its request for punitive damages (Sedgewick Aff. at \u00b6 26 (Dkt.\n\n No. 11 at \u00b6 16). Moreover, no other costs, including attorneys\u2019 fees are requested in\n\n the motion. (See Dkt. No. 11.)\n\n Accordingly, damages in this matter are mathematically ascertainable without\n\n a hearing, amounting to $59,228.69 plus post-judgment interest at the federal rate\n\n from the date of judgment until it is paid. This figure represents the principal due to\n\n Southwest Marine by Valentine. (Sedgewick Aff. at \u00b6 25.)\n\n The Court also finds Valentine is neither an infant, incompetent, or entitled to\n\n relief under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. See 50 U.S.C. \u00a7 3901 (formerly\n\n cited as 50 App. U.S.C. \u00a7 501); Sedgewick Aff. at \u00b6 26.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n\n For these reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Southwest Marine\u2019s\n\n motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 11) be GRANTED, and DEFAULT\n\n JUDGMENT be ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff Southwest Marine & General\n\n Insurance Company (\u201cSouthwest Marine\u201d), as assignee and subrogee of My\n\n Community Credit Union, against Defendant Tammion Valentine, consistent with\n\n these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 16 Filed 10/04/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID 72\n\n\n\n The undesigned FURTHER RECOMMENDS that Southwest Marine\u2019s\n\n motion to dismiss Defendant Valentine Travel Express, LLC (Dkt. No. 13), be\n\n GRANTED, and Southwest Marine\u2019s claims against Defendant Valentine Travel\n\n Express, LLC, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.\n\n SO RECOMMENDED on October 4, 2024.\n\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n BRIAN McKAY\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-12-21T03:09:09.226728-08:00","document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017175575","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-23T08:29:26.054976-07:00","date_modified":"2024-12-21T03:09:06.524288-08:00","date_filed":"2024-10-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":46,"description":" FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Southwest Marine's motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 11 ) be GRANTED, and DEFAULT JUDGMENT be ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff Sou thwest Marine & General Insurance Company. The undesigned FURTHER RECOMMENDS that Southwest Marine's motion to dismiss Defendant Valentine Travel Express, LLC (Dkt. No. 13 ), be GRANTED, and Southwest Marine's claims against Defendant Valentine Travel Express, LLC, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by US Magistrate Judge Brian McKay on 10/4/2024) (kcr)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/405891382/","id":405891382,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/416997793/","id":416997793,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/17/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-10-22T13:15:48.949947-07:00","date_modified":"2024-12-21T03:29:01.436040-08:00","sha1":"cfdb2a8790da99f04616f0ef2784d4112028e43b","page_count":1,"file_size":85396,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.17.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.17.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:24-cv-00013-B-BW Document 17 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n DALLAS DIVISION\n\nSOUTHWEST MARINE \u00a7\n& GENERAL INSURANCE \u00a7\nCOMPANY, as assignee and \u00a7\nsubrogee of My Community \u00a7\nCredit Union, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nV. \u00a7 No. 3:24-CV-013-B-BW\n \u00a7\nTAMMION VALENTINE, ET AL, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND\n RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation\n\nin this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings,\n\nconclusions, and recommendation as supplemented for plain error. Finding none, the Court\n\nACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate\n\nJudge.\n\n\n SO ORDERED.\n DATE: October 22, 2024.\n\n\n\n\n _________________________________\n JANE J. BOYLE\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n -1-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-10-23T01:35:43.669000-07:00","document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017214225","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-22T13:15:48.938034-07:00","date_modified":"2024-12-21T03:29:01.427940-08:00","date_filed":"2024-10-22","time_filed":"14:35:39","entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":50,"description":"ORDER ACCEPTING 16 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 10/22/2024) (kcr)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/405891379/","id":405891379,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/416997790/","id":416997790,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/18/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-10-22T13:15:48.740318-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:43.096370-07:00","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":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017214238","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-22T13:15:48.727395-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:43.085729-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-22","time_filed":"14:39:30","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-22.002","pacer_sequence_number":53,"description":"JUDGMENT: It is ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Tammion Valentine in the amount of $59,228.69 plus post-judgment interest thereon at the rates set forth in 26 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 6601, 6621, as adopted by 28 U.S.C. 1961(c), until it is paid. It is further ORDERED that SouthwestMarine's claims against Defendant Valentine Travel Express LLC are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 10/22/2024) (kcr) (Entered: 10/22/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/402868824/","id":402868824,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/412821434/","id":412821434,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/15/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-09-20T08:11:17.925885-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:43.025899-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017142318","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order to Show Cause/Order to Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-20T08:11:17.912573-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:43.015180-07:00","date_filed":"2024-09-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-09-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":44,"description":"Order to Show Cause: Valentine must SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why she has failed to file an answer. Failure to comply with this Order may result in default judgment against Valentine without further notice. Show Cause Response due by 9/27/2024. (Ordered by US Magistrate Judge Brian W McKay on 9/19/2024) (kaf) (Entered: 09/20/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/402584887/","id":402584887,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417087586/","id":417087586,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.996673-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:43.004378-07:00","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":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-18T00:04:59.938171-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.965462-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Magistrate Judge Brian W McKay added for referral. Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver no longer assigned to case. (twd)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/400304583/","id":400304583,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/409534182/","id":409534182,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/14/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-08-23T12:23:32.633193-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:33:19.189084-07:00","sha1":"033c6536632855f665d1f1e959299af644896313","page_count":14,"file_size":775977,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.14.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.14.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Pagel of 14 14.5, HAGEAR 124,\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |...\nFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS | <>\nDALLAS DIVISION |\n\nAUG 23 2024\n\nSPECIAL ORDER NO. 3-354\n\nEffective August 23, 2024, the cases listed on Exhibit A to this order are transferred to\nMagistrate Judge Brian McKay and shall henceforth carry the suffix letters \u201cBW.\u201d Magistrate\nJudge McKay shall seek consent of the parties in these cases to conduct all further proceedings\nand order the entry of final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(c). Ifall parties do not\nconsent, Magistrate Judge McKay shall, unless the assigned district judge otherwise orders,\n\nexercise all powers permitted by 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nAugust 23, 2024\n\nDect (_ wes\n\nDAVID C. GODBEY\nCHIEF JUDGE\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24\n\nPage 2o0f14 PagelD 125\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE RENEE H. TOLIVER TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n1 2:24-CV-0142-BK Hasan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration\n\n2 3:18-CV-1933-N Lexor Manufacturing LLC v. Luraco Ine, et al.\n\n3 3:19-CV-2204-X Retail Ready Career Center inc v. United States of America, et al.\n\n4 3:19-CV-2218-E Southwest Airlines Co v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc\n\n5 3:19-CV-2281-K FTC v. Match Group\n\n6 3:20-CV-0656-K-BK Buzz Photo, et al. v. People's Republic of China, et al.\n\n7 3:20-CV-2935-N Carswell v. Hunt County Texas, et al.\n\n8 3:20-CV-3718-D Samurai Global LLC v. Landmark American Insurance Company\n3:21-CV-0116-B Rainier Arms LLC, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and\n\n9 Explosives, et al.\n\n10 3:21-CV-0840-E TNT Quadrangle Partner, LP, et al. v. SRPF B/Quadrangle Property, LLC, et al.\n\n11 3:21-CV-1764-D Vess v. City of Dallas, et al.\n\n412 3:21-CV-2429-L Raskin, et al. v. Dallas Independent Schoo! District, et al.\n\n13 3:22-CV-0654-N Salt and Light Energy Equipment LLC v. Crigin Bancorp\n\n14 3:22-CV-0663-E United States of America v. All Funds in 199 Bank Accounts Located in India\n\n15 3:22-CV-0780-M State of Texas, et al. v. Biden, et al.\n\n16 3:22-CV-0907-5 Hilltop Holdings Inc v. AlG Specialty Insurance Company\n\n17 3:22-CV-1185-X Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company v. Morgan\n\n18 3:22-CV-1869-E Walsh v. Peterson\n\n19 3:22-CV-2118-X Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barton, et al.\n\n20 3:22-CV-2272-S Thomas v. McDonough, et al.\n\n21 3:22-CV-2597-K Pearson, et al. v. Gage\n\n22 3:22-CV-2624-B Iske v. Precision Dynamics International LLC\n\n23 3:22-CV-2763-E Boy Scouts of America v. Touch A Life Foundation Inc\n\n24 3:22-MC-0079-X-BK NiRB v. LM Carpet\n\n25 3:23-CV-0037-5 Young v. Baylor Scott & White Health\n\n26 3:23-CV-0133-B Endurance American Insurance Company v. Lloyd's Syndicate 3624\n\n27 3:23-CV-0313-S G Thomas Air LLC v. Pratt & Whitney Engine Services Inc\n\n28 3:23-CV-0342-M Ariat International Inc v. Khemchand Handicrafts Limited, et ai.\n\n29 3:23-CV-0464-D Alford v. Wonderland Montessori Academy LLC\n\n30 3:23-CV-0584-G Lee Ir v. United States\n3:23-CV-0640-D M Central Residences Condominium Association Inc v. Technology\n\n31 Insurance Company Inc\n\n32 3:23-CV-0641-L Securities and Exchange Commission v. McKnight\n\n33 3:23-CV-0811-E Alawei v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service\n\n34 3:23-CV-0881-X GS Holistic LCC v. Sri Manakamana Inc\n\n35 3:23-CV-0910-B Brandon Architects Inc v. Olerio Home LLC\n\n36 3:23-CV-0954-X Lopez v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.\n\n37 3:23-CV-0965-X Wilcox v. Equifax Information Services LLC\n\n38 3:23-CV-1171-K Modern Vascular of Southaven LLC, et al. v. Qlarant Integrity Solutions LLC\n\n39 3:23-CV-1198-G White v. American Economy Insurance Company\n\n40 3:23-CV-1351-X $2 Brothers LLC v. AmGuard Insurance Company\n\n41 3:23-CV-1399-G Dill v. Experian Information Solutions Inc\n\n1\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page3o0f14 PagelD 126\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE RENEE H. TOLIVER TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n42 3:23-CV-1457-5 Denison Glass & Mirror Ine v. EFCO LLC\n\n43 3:23-CV-1559-B Fitton v. Pinnacle Propane LLC\n\n44 3:23-CV-1574-E Johnson, et al. v. Dallas County Hospital District, et al.\n\n45 3:23-CV-1583-E Hernandez v. Brown\n\n46 3:23-CV-1663-D-BK Hill v. Norman, et ai.\n\n47 3:23-CV-1698-L-BK Jaffari v. Garland, et al.\n\n48 3:23-CV-1772-B Uliman v. OBM Miami\n\n49 3:23-CV-1915-B-BK Pinson v. Dallas Cnty. Sherriff\u2019s Office, et al.\n\n50 3:23-CV-1918-N Martinez v. Kroger\n3:23-CV-1945-D-BK Thornton v. Dallas County d/b/a Dallas County District Attorney's Office, et\n\n51 al.\n\n52 3:23-CV-2088-L-BK Gordon v. Kellam\n\n53 3:23-CV-2090-N-BK Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security\n\n54 3:23-CV-2094-N-BK Humble v. Enge, et al.\n\n55 3:23-CV-2112-D King v. SeaHarbor Insurance Agency LLC\n\n56 3:23-CV-2162-5 Sealed v. Sealed\n\n57 3:23-CV-2195-X-BK Ashley v. DOL\n\n58 3:23-CV-2212-B Hunter v. Procollect Inc\n\n59 3:23-CV-2231-5 82 Glenwood Avenue LLC v. Schutze, et al.\n\n60 3:23-CV-2385-BK Fernandez v. Social Security Administration\n\n61 3:23-CV-2412-D Beasley v. Castle Credit Co Holdings LLC\n\n62 3:23-CV-2438-N-BK Blanks v, Federal Correctional Institution Seagoville, et al.\n\n63 3:23-CV-2493-K-BK Dickerson v. Conduent Commercial! Solutions LLC\n\n64 3:23-CV-2656-K-BK United States of America v. Rehab 4 Work Services LLC, et al.\n\n65 3:23-CV-2728-B Factor Mutual Insurance Company v. Southwest Pumps LLC, et al.\n\n66 3:24-CV-0013-B SW Marine v. Valentine\n\n67 3:24-CV-0072-E Katz v. Gruenberg, et al.\n\n68 3:24-CV-0104-E Tupac v. Asbury Automotive Group Inc, et al.\n\n69 3:24-CV-0112-E-BK Keys v. Connors et al.\n\n70 3:24-CV-0113-K-BK Smith v. Federai Bureau of Prisons, et al.\n\n71 3:24-CV-0148-B Samiappan v. Su\n\n72 3:24-CV-0244-N Sukin v. Experian Information Soiutions Inc, et al.\n\n73 3:24-CV-0298-G Liu v. U.S. Department of State, et ai.\n\n74 3:24-CV-0376-X Colonna, et al. v. LoanDepot.com LLC\n\n75 3:24-CV-0626-S-BK Alfano v. Allred Unit Mailroom\n\n76 3:24-CV-1060-L-BK Butler v. Lee at al\n\n77 3:24-CV-1063-D Rodriguez v. ALDI Inc\n\n78 3:24-CV-1083-K G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Frida's Tacos LLC, et al.\n\n79 3:24-CV-1089-X Feit Electric Company Inc v. Elong international USA Inc, et al.\n\n80 3:24-CV-1117-K Umoru v. Walmart Stores Texas LLC\n\n81 3:24-CV-1149-X-BK Central States Health and Welfare Fund v. Contreras\n3:24-CV-1151-X Dallas Food & Beverage LLC, et al. v. United States Smail Business\n\n82 Administration, et al.\n\n83 3:24-CV-1245-B Sealed v. Sealed\n\n84 3:24-CV-1367-S Jain, et al. v. Jaddou\n\n85 3:24-CV-1416-G-BK Henderson v. Trump\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page4of14 PagelD 127\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE RENEE H. TOLIVER TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n86 3:24-CV-1422-5 Kearney v. Equifax Information Services LLC\n\n87 3:24-CV-1551-B Zachary v. Environmental Protection Agency\n\n88 3:24-CV-1587-S-BK Henderson v. Trump\n\n89 3:24-CV-1621-G Hamilton v. Walmart Inc\n\n90 3:24-CV-1677-X EYM Pizza of Georgia LLC, et al. v. Pizza Hut LLC, et al.\n\n91 3:24-CV-1705-D Ogboru v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company\n92 3:24-MC-0017-E NFinity IP v. Varsity Spirit\n\n93 4:24-CV-0592-BK Johnson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration\n\n94 5:23-CV-0259-BK Arguello v. Social Security Administration\n\n95 5:23-CV-0281-BK Murphy v. Social Security Administration\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page5of14\n\nPagelD 128\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n1 3:16-cv-00764-N VidStream LLC v. Twitter Inc\nCapio Funding LLC v. Rural/Metro Operating\n2 3:17-cv-02713-X Company LLC et al\n3 3:19-cv-01067-K Von Colditz v. Woods et af\n4 3:20-cv-00045-D Rodriguez v. Southern Health Partners Inc et al\n5 3:20-cv-00313-N Hamilton et al v. Dallas County\n6 3:20-cv-01358-E Coleman et al v. Brozen et al\n7 3:20-cv-03636-K Blue Yonder Group inc v. Kinaxis inc et al\n8 3:21-cv-01498-B Halperin et al v. Wills et al\n9 3:22-cv-00034-X McClung et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC et al\n10 3:22-cv-00141-N-BN Bell v. Moore\nit 3:22-cv-00525-X Fiberco, Inc. v. Acadia Insurance Company\nHighland Capital Management LP et al v. Highland Capital Management Fund\n12 3:22-cv-00789-X Advisors LP\n13 3:22-cv-00794-$ Legacy Exploration LLC v. Optimum Energy Partners LLC et al\n14 3:22-cv-01498-G-BN Timmons v. Director\n45 3:22-cy-01581-G-BN Sharper v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n416 3:22-cv-01600-G-BN Matthews v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n17 3:22-cv-01871-G-BN Turner v. O'Daniel\n18 3:22-cv-02062-X Shuler Drilling Company Inc v. Disiere Partners LLC, et al\n19 3:22-cv-02312-G-BN Mornes v, Director, TDCJ-CID\n20 3:22-cv-02403-N-BN Carey v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n21 3:22-cv-02410-G Castillo v. Walmart Inc et ai\n22 3:22-cv-02589-S-BN Minze v. Director, TOCJ-CID\n23 3:22-cv-02600-X Venzant v. Bigelow Arizona TX-282 LP et al\n24 3:22-cv-02891-N-BN Carcamo v. Director, FDCJ-CID\n25 3:23-cv-00057-K-BN Turner v. Wellpath Med Co\n26 3:23-cv-00066-B-BN Hernandez v. Director, TDCJ-CID\nTrustees of the IBEW-NECA Southwestern Health and Benefit Fund et al v. Rockey\n27 3:23-cv-00224-B Electric Inc\n28 3:23-cv-00280-K Mercury Associates Inc v. Primoris Services Corporation\n29 3:23-cv-00303-N Paige v. State Farm Lloyds\n30 3:23-cv-00337-X-BN Roccaforte v. Transunion\n31 3:23-cv-00338-N-BN Roccaforte v. Experian information Solutions Inc\n32 3:23-cv-00339-E-BN Roccaforte v. Equifax Inc\n33 3:23-cv-00355-X EDN Global Inc et al v. AT&T Mobility Services LUC et al\n34 3:23-cv-G0391-D Walker v. Hoffman et al\n35 3:23-cv-00410-E-BN Lewis v. Equifax\n36 3:23-cv-00435-B-BN Lewis v. Experian\n37 3:23-cv-00508-N Doe v. Backpage.com LLC et al\n38 3:23-cv-00547-K Bilbo v. Central Transport LLC\n39 3:23-cv-00568-B Cunningham v. State Farm Lloyds\n40 3:23-cv-00574-B Martin v. Penske Logistics LLC\n41 3:23-cv-80603-E Bridging Biosciences LLC v, Esch et al\n42 3:23-cv-00668-E-BN Spillman Jr v. Director, TDCI-CID\n43 3:23-cv-00706-E Arka Mesquite Investments LLC et al v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company\n44 3:23-cv-00736-M Powell v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana\n45 3:23-cv-00755-M-BN Toliver v. Director, TDCJ-CID\n46 3:23-cv-00772-E-BN Cloninger v. Director, TDC)-CID\n47 3:23-cv-00819-G White v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page6of14 PagelD 129\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n4g 3:23-cv-00844-M Bellinger v. CureWave Lasers LLC et al\n49 3:23-cv-00852-G New York inn Inc et al v, Associated Industries Insurance Company Inc\n50 3:23-cv-00882-L GS Holistic LLC v. B Over 21 Inc et al\n51 3:23-cv-00915-B SMA v. Salesforce et al\n52 3:23-cv-00948-K Eder v. City of Burleson\n53 3:23-cv-00977-5 Brown v. Sarn\u2019s East Inc\n54 3:23-cv-01016-D Johnson v. Epsilon Data Management LLC\n55 3:23-cv-01018-X Licht v. Ling et al\n56 3:23-cv-01024-L GS Holistic LLC v. OMS Investment LLC et al\n57 3:23-cv-01039-B Jone Doe AS v. Salesforce Inc et a!\n58 3:23-cv-01089-N-BN Rountree v, FedEx Ground Package System Inc\n59 3:23-cv-01228-G Garcia v. Fiesta Mart LLC et al\n60 3:23-cv-01230-B Horton et al v. Heppner et al\n61 3:23-cv-01286-E Warner v. Equifax information Services LLC et ai\n62 3:23-cv-01301-X Dheera Limited Company v. Johnson Controls Inc et ai\n63 3:23-cv-01320-N-BN Silvers v. Director, TOCJ-CIB\n64 3:23-cv-01339-E Terri E Newkirk IRA v. Kelly e\u00a2 al\n65 3:23-cv-01345-L Russell v. Kroger Texas, LP\n66 3:23-cv-01356-L-BN Perez v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al\n6&7 3:23-cv-01366-N Husinger v. Smart Start Real estate Corporation\n68 3:23-cv-01376-X Harris v. Papa Texas LLC\n69 3:23-cv-01468-D Nieves v. Uber Technologies Inc et al\n70 3:23-cv-01484-L Red Barn Candle Company ELC v. Bath & Body Works Brand Management Inc\n7t 3:23-cv-01497-L Rittman v. Amguard Insurance Company\n72 3:23-cv-01502-G-BN Cook v. Costco Wholesale Corporation\n73 3:23-cv-01503-B Charitable DAF Fund LP et al v. Highland Capital Management LP\n74 3:23-cv-01517-N Bahamas Laguna Azure LLC v. City of Royse City, Texas\n75 3:23-cv-01525-X Biovant LLC v. BTEAG LLC et al\n76 3:23-cv-01548-5 Cobbs v. Baylor Scott & White\n77 3:23-cv-01557-D Clark v. Wyndham Worldwide, Inc\n78 3:23-cv-01561-K Erwin et al v. Metalcraft of Mayville Inc\n79 3:23-cv-01565-S-BN Fields v. Kelley\n80 3:23-cv-01617-X Holmes v. Equifax information Services LLC et al\n81 3:23-cv-01621-5 Niter et al v. Brown et al\n82 3:23-cv-01669-B Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n83 3:23-cv-01674-B Brookfield Property Retail Holdings LLC et ai v. Dillard Texas Central LLC\n84 3:23-cv-01675-L Van-Zandt Reiss et al v. The Bank of New York Melon\n&5 3:23-cv-01679-E Harris v. HireRight LLC\n86 3:23-cv-01775-X Palmer v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc\n87 3:23-cv-01791-L SPBL-1119 LLC v. Arciterra Strategic Retail Advisor LLC et al\n8&8 3:23-cv-01793-L LSM Blue Sky LLC v. AT Olathe Outlot 5 LLC et al\n89 3:23-cv-01802-E Megehee v. Pallida LLC\n90 3:23-cv-01805-E McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation et al\n91 3:23-cv-01832-8 Doe v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit et al\n92 3:23-cv-01870-K GS Holistic LLC v. GNS Sons Inc\n93 3:23-cv-01889-S Velis v. Bangert et al\n94 3:23-cv-01910-E Hagans v. Child Care Group\n95 3:23-cv-01912-S Lessig v. Fiesta Mart LLC\n96 3:23-cv-01937-N Kustom Signals Inc v. Applied Concepts Inc\n97 3:23-cv-01972-L Owens v. Dallas Country Club\n98 3:23-cv-01973-K-BN Bohemond v. City of Dallas TX\n99 3:23-cv-01998-B Harland v. Workforce outsource Services Inc\n\n5\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page7of1i4 PagelD 130\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n100 3:23-cv-02009-G-BN Hunsinger v. Atmos Energy Corporation\n101 3:23-cv-02010-B Johnson et al v. Crosby Elementary School et al\n3:23-cv-02011-B\n\n102 Sample v. SLI Enterprises Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02023-B\n\n103 Promed LLC v, Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA\n3:23-cv-02050-X\n\n104 Taste of Chengdu LLC v. Feng\n3:23-cv-G2070-G6\n\n105 Summers v. Longbrake et al\n3:23-cv-02071-E\n\n106 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n3:23-cv-02097-X\n\n107 Holcamb v. Monitronics International\n3:23-cv-02110-B\n\n108 Consumer Data Partners, LP et al v. Agentra LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02126-5\n\n109 Mosure et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Co.\n3:23-cv-02143-N\n\n110 Dillard v. Gaines Investment Trust et al\n3:23-cv-02148-K-BN\n\n411 Booth v. US Bank Trust NA\n3:23-ev-02155-L\n\n412 cici Enterprises LP v. HSB Specialty Insurance Company\n3:23-cv-02158-D\n\n113 Wilson v. Korth Direct Mortgage et al\n3:23-cv-02203-E\n\n114 Warehouse Solutions Inc v. Plus Veterans, LLC\n3:23-cv-02214-$\n\n115 Big Games Management LLC v. Bespoke Piush LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02232-B\n\n116 Campbell v. Methodist Hospitais of Dallas et al\n3:23-cv-02238-E\n\n117 Cameron v. QT South LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02243-E\n\n118 Paez v. Childrens Health System of Texas\n3:23-cv-02284-G\n\n119 Stanley v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC\n3:23-cv-02286-X\n\n120 Brandon Wade Photography LLC v. Killian Design LLC\n3:23-cv-02292-L\n\n121 Lloyd v. Athena Condominiums Co-Owners Association\n3:23-cv-02294-B-BN\n\n422 Andrews v. York et af\n3:23-cv-02307-G\n\n123 Lee v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02367-K\n\n124 City of Dallas v. Triple D Gear, LLC\n3:23-cv-02387-L\n\n125 Nasrallah v. Scottsdale Insurance Company\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page8of14 PagelD 131\n\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n3:23-cv-02404-L\n126 Lilium GVP LLC v. Transportation Insurance Company et al\n3:23-cv-02421-X\n127 Principal Life Insurance Company v. Roque et al\n3:23-cv-02457-B-BN\n428 Young v. United Parcel Service Inc (Ohio)\n3:23-cv-02494-\u00a7\n4129 Hossain v. The Boeing Company\n3:23-cv-02504-K\n130 DAV Sub Inc v. QligSOFT Inc\n3:23-cv-02531-E\n131 Dawson v. Union Pacific Railroad\n3:23-cv-02532-E-BN\n132 Randle v. Brown et al\n3:23-cv-02539-X\n133 Bowers v. Uplift Education\n3:23-cv-02547-E\n134 Session v. Sanofi US Services Inc. et al\n3:23-cv-02594-E\n135 Verna IP Holdings LLC v. Dais Inc\n\n3:23-cv-02624-N\n\n136 Doe v. International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals Foundation Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02633-S\n137 Motton v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC\n3:23-cv-02670-E\n138 Samadian v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company\n3:23-cv-02671-X\n139 APOD Group ELC v. Glen Lakes Homeowners Association Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02673-G\n140 Elliott v. Gonzalez et al\n3:23-cv-02708-B\n144 Dishmon v. Newkirk Logistics Inc\n3:23-cv-02725-D\n142 Pradia v. The City of Rhome et al\n3:23-cv-02737-N\n143 Rollins-Booker v. Senture LLC\n3:23-cv-02770-S\n144 Camacho v. Sajeda Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02795-E\n145 Coil v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al\n3:23-cv-02807-K\n146 Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Williams et al\n3:23-cv-02827-G-BN\n447 Moka v. Huntex Properties LLC et al\n3:23-cv-02830-X\n148 Mesa Digital LLC v. One Plus USA Corp\n3:23-cv-02834-E\n149 Canada, Jr. et al v. Sherman\n3:23-cv-02839-E\n150 Accurate Metal Stamping LLC v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company et al\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page9of14 PagelD 132\n\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n3:24-cv-00002-L\n\n151 McLaughlin et al v. Family Assets Management LLC\n3:24-cv-00004-N\n\n152 Hill v. Garcia et af\n3:24-cv-00631-L\n\n153 Great American Insurance v, Truckmax Inc\n3:24-cv-00098-L\n\nLeon Capital Group LEC et al v. Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Company\n\n154 et al\n3:24-cv-00122-B\n\n455 Slate/Sefect Inc v. Martin Marietta Materials Inc et al\n3:24-cv-00191-E\n\n156 Crum & Forster Insurance Company v. Shreno Limited\n3:24-cv-00255-E\n\n157 Blacknall v. Allata LLC et al\n3:24-cv-00285-G-BN\n\n158 Davis et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et ai\n3:24-cv-00331-5\n\n159 Tafolla v. Wacker et al\n3:24-cv-00341-S\n\n160 Forsythe et al v. Equifax Information Services LLC et ai\n3:24-cv-00347-K\n\n161 Homesteaders Life Company v. Williams\n3:24-cv-00361-E\n\n162 Kendrick v. QuickTrip Corporation\n3:24-cv-00382-B\n\n463 US Bank National Association v. Malloy\n3:24-cv-00388-E\n\n164 Elioznde v. Randalls Food and Drug LP\n3:24-cv-00417-X\n\n165 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe\n3:24-cv-00434-L\n\n166 G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Aguifar\n3:24-cv-00498-K\n\n167 Highland Employee Retention Assets LLC v. Dondero et al\n3:24-cv-00528-B\n\n168 Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. Doe\n3:24-cv-00544-D-BN\n\n169 Rector v. Director, TDC)-CID\n3:24-cv-00568-N\n\n170 Strong v. Bank of America Corporation et al\n3:24-cv-00569-5\n\ni71 Haag Engineering Co v. Ellis et al\n3:24-cv-00647-L\n\n172 Languasco et al v. Blair Logistics LLC\n3:24-cv-00658-5\n\n173 Gardner v. The Lincoin National Life Insurance Company\n3:24-cv-00691-D\n\n174 Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP\n3:24-ev-00702-L\n\n175 Birrueta v. State Farm Lloyds\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page10o0f14 PagelD 133\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n# Case No. Case Name\n3:24-cv-00728-X-BN\n\n176 Said v. EAN Holdings LLC et al\n3:24-cv-00791-E\n\n177 Wilson v. British Airways PLC\n3:24-cv-00796-L\n\n178 Sanchez v. Caliber Holdings LLC\n\n179 3:24-cv-00798-E King v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC\n3:24-cv-00809-S\n\n180 Kenney et al v. Dallas County Texas\n3:24-cv-00817-B\n\n181 Children's Health System of Texas v. UnitedHeaithcare Insurance Company\n3:24-cv-00892-B\n\n182 Toombs et al v. Kaufman County, Texas et al\n3:24-cv-00905-E-BN\n\n183 Rass v. Texas Instruments\n3:24-cv-00909-K-BN\n\n184 Bryant v. EverBank NA\n3:24-cv-00971-X\n\n185 Morgan v. Fundamental Clinical And Operational Services LLC\n3:24-cv-01020-X\n\n186 The Shore Firm LLP v. Videoshare LLC\n\n187 3:24-cv-01051-5 Gilliard v. Southwest Airlines Federal Credit Union\n3:24-ev-01075-N\n\n188 Ayangbile et al v. Children's Health Services of Texas\n3:24-cyv-011329-X\n\n189 Ray v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al\n3:24-cv-01175-S-BN\n\n190 Romero et al v. US Bank National Association\n3:24-cv-01198-L\n\n191 Nautilus Hyosung America Inc v. BMO Bank NA et al\n3:24-cv-01209-D\n\n192 American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Southwest Airlines Co\n3:24-cv-01233-5\n\n193 Smith v. Montez et al\n3:24-cv-01262-D\n\n194 Brandon Wade Photography, LLC v. OTC Bar LLC\n3:24-cv-01288-D-BN\n\n195 Williams v. Richardson Independent School District\n3:24-cv-01319-G\n\n196 Daniels-Mock v. Taxir Logistics Inc et al\n3:24-cv-01326-K-BN\n\n197 Wickman v. Navarro County Jail\n3:24-cv-01339-B\n\n198 Travers v. Allstate Vehicle and Property insurance Company\n3:24-cv-01358-E\n\n199 Joe Hand Promotions inc v. Carbajal et at\n3:24-cv-01370-D-BN\n\n200 Council v. Draftkings et al\n3:24-cv-01397-K\n\n201 PacSec3 LLC v. RSA Federal LLC\n3:24-cv-01413-X\n\n202 Guillen et al v. U-Haul Company of Texas et al\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Pagei1i1of14 PagelD 134\n\nExhibit A\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n203 3:24-cv-01418-L Wilson v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc.\n3:24-cv-O1447-E\n204 Akhmedov v. TA Operating LLC\n\n3:24-cv-01461-K\n\n205 Moreno et al v. Alan Halperin, In his capacity as Trustee of the GFES Liquidation Trust\n3:24-cv-01479-$\n\n206 NexPoint Real Estate Partners LLC et al v. Highland Capital Management LP\n3:24-cv-01483-G\n\n207 Amazon.com Inc et al v. Baik et al\n3:24-cv-01519-B-BN\n\n208 Robinson-Durham v. Navarro County Jail\n3:24-cv-01531-X\n\n209 Dugaboy Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n3:24-cv-01541-B\n\n210 Sanchez et ai v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al\n3:24-cv-01554-D\n\n211 Hernandez v. Bishop Cider Company LLC et al\n\n3:24-cv-01563-D\nWLands Limited Partnership LP et al v. Founders Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation\n\n212 Partners LLC et al\n\n213 3:24-cv-01603-X Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n214 3:24-cv-01610-E Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n215 3:24-cv-01641-D Elizondo v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n216 3:24-cv-01642-X Aurzada et af v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al\n217 3:24-cv-01646-G-BN Sharman v. H&R Block et al\n\n218 3:24-cv-01647-N Rodriguez v. Home Depot USA inc\n\n219 3:24-cv-01684-L Criss v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc\n220 3:24-cv-01685-G Harris v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n221 3:24-cv-01692-N Ricker v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al\n222 3:24-cv-01711-D Mitchel v. Pitre et al\n\n223 3:24-cv-01717-K Ayala v. Chedraui USA Inc\n\n224 3:24-cv-01716-L Hutchinson v. Sunrun Inc\n\n225 3:24-cv-01720-K Miller v. Xpress Global Systems LLC\n\n226 S:24-cv-01743-L Collier v. Carter\n\n227 3:24-cv-O1768-5 Bosman v. Amazon.com inc et al\n\n3:24-cv-01786-L\n\n228 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n3:24-cv-01787-L\n\n229 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust et al v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n\n230 3:24-cv-01796-B Larsen v. Apt All Points Transportation LLC et al\n\n231 3:24-cv-01811-D McAfee v. Lear Corporation\n\n232 3:24-cv-01821-K Ryan LLC v, Radin\n\n233 3:24-cv-01839-E Forstey v. Jordan et al\n\n234 3:24-cv-01873-X Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n235 3:24-cv-01882-X Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe\n\n236 3:24-cv-01908-D Hibdon v. Atrium Hospitality LP\n3:24-cv-01912-E\n\n237 Hunter Mountain Investment Trust v. Highland Capital Management LP et al\n\n10\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20\n\nFiled 08/23/24 Page12o0f14 PagelD 135\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE DAVID L. HORAN TO JUDGE MCKAY\n# Case No. Case Name\n238 3:24-cv-01949-X Alentisar Trading Company v. Eyondi et al\n239 3:24-cv-01967-S-BN Willtams v. Richardson ISD\n\n41\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page130f14 PagelD 136\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE REBECCA RUTHERFORD\nTO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n1 3:22-cv-02887-L-BT Murphy v. Director\n\n2 3:23-cv-00316-B-BT Marcus v. Director\n\n3 3:23-cv-00978-D-BT Walton v. USA\n\n4 3:23-cv-02449-D-BT Manzo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons\n\n5 3:23-cv-2677-S-BT Jackson v. Smali Business Administration et al\n\n6 3:24-cv-00175-S-BT Gonzales v. Collier\n\n7 3:24-cv-00661-B-BT Hammons v. Tradeline Motorcars et al\n\n8 3:24-cv-00637-S-BT Humes v. McDonald's Walmart #5416-945\n\n9 3:24-cv-01708-X-BT Traeger v. Jones et al\n\n10 3:23-cv-00315-X-BT Duhon v. Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company et al\n\n11 3:23-cv-02194-8-BT Walters v. Garland\n\n12 3:23-cv-02157-L-BT United States of America v. Morgan et al\n3:24-cv-00277-L National Association of Blind Merchants et al v. The Army & Air Force Exchange\n\n13 Service et al\n\n14 3:24-cv-00273-N-BT De Pute v. United States of America et al\n\n15 3:24-cv-00703-B-BT Freeman v. USA et al\n\n16 3:23-cv-01994-S-BT Davis v. City of Mclendon Chisholm et al\n\n17 3:24-cv-00731-L Crenshaw v. Anderson et al\n\n18 3:24-mc-00034-B-BT Calhoun v. United States\n\n19 3:23-cv-02682-5-BT Phoenix Bulk Carriers LLC v. CAL-IXA Aggregates LLC\n\n20 3:24-cv-01590-N-BT Jackson v. United States Postal Service et al\n\n27 3:24-cv-01759-B-BT Woods v. Delta Air Lines inc\n\n22 2:23-cv-00171-BT Row v. Commissioner\n\n23 1:24-cv-00083-BT Gonzales v. Commissioner\n\n24 5:23-cv-00293-BT Mims v. Commissioner\n\n25 3:14-cv-02970-X Clapper et al v. American Realty Investors Inc et al\n\n26 3:20-cv-01276-N Kunze et al v. Baylor Scott & White Health et al\n\n27 3:20-cv-01364-E Malbrew et al v. A+ Charter Schools\n\n28 3:21-cv-02131-K Bernstein v. Maximus Federal Services Inc\n\n29 3:22-cv-00876-N Grimmett et al v. Coleman et al\n\n30 3:22-cv-02116-X Black v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America\n\n31 3:22-cv-02182-M Range! de Oliveira v. Bierman\n\n32 3:22-cv-02184-B Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Vibrant Builders et ai\n\n33 3:23-cv-00271-K Green v. USA\n\n34 3:23-cv-01340-L Perez v. Experian Information Solutions Inc\n\n35 3:23-cv-01412-N Aravamuthan v. US Citizenship & immigration Service et al\n\n36 3:23-cv-01416-B8 Landmark American Insurance Company v. Richland Trace Owners Association Inc\n\n37 3:23-cv-01441-N Thompson v. McGehee et al\n\n38 3:23-cv-01490-S Norwood v. Dallas County Hospital District\n\n39 3:23-cv-01494-N Mathew v. Santander Consumer USA Inc\n\n40 3:23-cv-02051-N Shrestha et al v. USCIS et al\n\n41 3:23-cv-02089-E Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. ACI Payments Inc et al\n\n42 3:22-cv-01529-N Oliver v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC et al\n\n12\n\n\fCase 3:23-cv-00881-X Document 20 Filed 08/23/24 Page14o0f14 PagelD 137\n\nExhibit A\n\nCASES TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE DOCKET OF JUDGE REBECCA RUTHERFORD\nTO JUDGE MCKAY\n\n43 3:23-cv-00045-E Mauricio et al v. US Postal Service\n\n44 3:23-cv-01168-N-BT United States of America v. $39,900 in US Currency\n45 3:23-cv-02146-D Securities and Exchange Commission v. Verges et al\n\n46 3:23-cv-02222-K Heard et al v. State Farm Lloyds\n\n47 3:23-cv-02591-D Oldham v. State Farm Lloyds\n\n48 3:23-cv-02621-8 Sealed v. Sealed\n\n49 3:23-cv-02701-\u00a3 Pertrorock Mineral Holdings, LLC et al v. Minerva Resources, LLC et al\n50 3:23-cv-02271-S Hayes v. City of Dallas et al\n\n51 3:23-cv-02338-K Smith v. USA\n\n52 3:23-cv-02462-D Botone et al v. Unitrin Safeguard Insurance Company\n\n53 3:24-cv-00014-D Hardrick v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al\n54 3:24-cv-00201-K Ware et al v. Meridian Security Insurance Company\n\n55 3:24-cv-00204-X United States of America v. $45,000.00 in US Currency\n56 3:24-cv-00220-B Bayazeed v. Robinson et al\n\n57 3:24-cv-00664-X VDPP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC\n\n58 3:24-cv-00700-X-BT Garrison v. John Doe et al\n\n59 3:24-cv-00943-E M&H Metal Specialties Inc v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fd\n60 3:24-cv-00944-5 USA v. Various Amounts of Funds Seized\n\n61 3:24-cv-01169-B Nieto v. USA\n\n62 3:24-cv-01484-S5 Antunez-Martinez v. Mayorkas\n\n63 3:24-cv-01525-K Gonzales Miranda et al v. Jaddou\n\n64 3:24-cv-01674-E-BT Turner v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm et al\n65 3:24-cv-01676-S Bibars v. Jaddou et al\n\n66 3:24-cv-01795-S Valtrus Innovations Ltd et al v. Google LLC\n\n67 3:24-cv-01902-K-BT Allen-Straight v. Director-TBC)\n\n68 3:24-cv-02028-X-BT Lockwood v. Chilcoat et al\n\n69 3:24-cv-02114-K-BT Santana v. Cantu et al\n\n70 3:24-cv-02127-X-BT Stancu v. Equal Employment Cppertunity Commission\n71 3:24-cy-02132-S-BT Damm v. Dallas County Jail\n\n72 3:24-cv-02143-B-BT Jalloul v. USA\n\n73 3:24-cv-02144-5-BT Jeffery v. NLN\n\n74 4:24-cv-00678-B8T Bolden v. Commissioner\n\n13\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T17:43:57.611073-07:00","document_number":"14","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":"2024-08-23T12:23:32.577359-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.943933-07:00","date_filed":"2024-08-23","time_filed":"13:20:18","entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-08-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":37,"description":"Special Order No. 3-354: Effective August 23, 2024, the cases listed on Exhibit A to this order are transferred to Magistrate Judge Brian McKay and shall henceforth carry the suffix letters BW. This case has been reassigned pursuant to Special Order No. 3-354. (The clerk has mailed a copy to all non-ECF users.) (Ordered by Chief Judge David C. Godbey on 8/23/2024) (cea) (Entered: 08/23/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062622/","id":396062622,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405190422/","id":405190422,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/13/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.335470-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.932227-07:00","sha1":"037cafbf2d44732b6ce6c7f1261d019311a0a77f","page_count":2,"file_size":22144,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.13.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751/gov.uscourts.txnd.384751.13.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:24-cv-00013-B-BK Document 13 Filed 07/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 38\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n\n SOUTHWEST MARINE & GENERAL\n INSURANCE COMPANY, as assignee and No. 3:24-cv-00013-B\n subrogee of My Community Credit Union,\n\n Plaintiff,\n v.\n\n TAMMION VALENTINE and VALENTINE\n TRAVEL EXPRESS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S REQUEST TO DISMISS DEFENDANT, VALENTINE TRAVEL\n EXPRESS LLC WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO BE\n ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANT, TAMMION VALENTINE\n\n Plaintiff, Southwest Marine & General Insurance Company, by and through its attorneys,\n\nMcElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, requests that this Honorable Court (1) dismiss\n\nthe claims against Defendant, Valentine Travel Express LLC, without prejudice; and (2) enter\n\ndefault judgment in its favor and against Defendant, Tammion Valentine, as set forth in Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nMotion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 11) which remains pending.\n\n\n\n McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &\n CARPENTER, LLP\n\n\nDated: July 3, 2024 By: /s/ Matthew A. Lipman\n Matthew A. Lipman, Esq.\n 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1500\n Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1815\n Telephone: (215) 557-2900\n Facsimile: (215) 557-2990\n mlipman@mdmc-law.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff, Southwest Marine &\n General Insurance Company\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00013-B-BK Document 13 Filed 07/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 39\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n\n SOUTHWEST MARINE & GENERAL\n INSURANCE COMPANY, as assignee and No. 3:24-cv-00013-B\n subrogee of My Community Credit Union,\n\n Plaintiff,\n v.\n\n TAMMION VALENTINE and VALENTINE\n TRAVEL EXPRESS LLC,\n\n Defendants.\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby state that on July 3, 2024, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing\n\ndocuments on the following via first class mail:\n\n Ms. Tammion Valentine\n 12701 Purdue Drive\n Balch Springs, TX 75180\n\n Valentine Travel Express LLC\n c/o Tammion Valentine\n 12701 Purdue Drive\n Balch Springs, TX 75180\n\n\n By: /s/ Matthew A. Lipman\n Matthew A. Lipman, Esquire\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-07-10T23:34:24.407343-07:00","document_number":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016964264","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.321469-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.921295-07:00","date_filed":"2024-07-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-07-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":35,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Valentine Travel Express only, without prejudice, filed by Southwest Marine and General Insurance Company (Lipman, Matthew) (Entered: 07/07/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062621/","id":396062621,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417087585/","id":417087585,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/12/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.900327-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.908992-07:00","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":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.292115-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.837475-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ELECTRONIC ORDER: On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action along with the $405.00 filing fee. Doc. 1. Having paid the filing fee, Plaintiff is responsible for obtaining summonses and effecting service of process as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As of the date of this order, however, no summons has been returned executed as to Defendant Valentine Travel Express, LLC. If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).Plaintiff is placed on notice that this case will be dismissed as to Defendant Valentine Travel Express, LLC under Rule 4(m) unless Plaintiff completes service of process in accordance with Rule 4 or shows good cause for the failure to effect service no later than July 8, 2024. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver on 6/17/2024) (chmb) (Entered: 06/17/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062620/","id":396062620,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405190420/","id":405190420,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/11/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.276189-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.825067-07:00","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":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016705284","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.263491-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.814575-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":31,"description":"MOTION for Default Judgment against Tammion Valentine filed by Southwest Marine and General Insurance Company (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit(s) of Dawn Sedwick, # 3 Certificate of Service) (Lipman, Matthew) (Entered: 03/19/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062619/","id":396062619,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405190419/","id":405190419,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/9/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.202266-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.777745-07:00","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":"177016607689","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.190496-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.755180-07:00","date_filed":"2024-02-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":25,"description":"RESPONSE filed by Tammion Valentine re: 8 Order to Show Cause/Order to Answer. (kcr) (Entered: 02/08/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062618/","id":396062618,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405190418/","id":405190418,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/7/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.139523-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.703915-07:00","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":"7","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016588505","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.127118-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.693294-07:00","date_filed":"2024-01-31","time_filed":null,"entry_number":7,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-01-31.002","pacer_sequence_number":21,"description":"Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Tammion Valentine (ykp) (Main Document 7 replaced and modified text on 2/1/2024) (ykp). (Entered: 01/31/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062617/","id":396062617,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405190417/","id":405190417,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/6/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.111859-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.682150-07:00","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":"6","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016587165","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.100590-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.672079-07:00","date_filed":"2024-01-31","time_filed":null,"entry_number":6,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-01-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":19,"description":"Request for Clerk to issue Entry of Default filed by Southwest Marine and General Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lipman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/31/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/396062616/","id":396062616,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/405190416/","id":405190416,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/5/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.086064-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.659721-07:00","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":"5","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016565469","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-07-10T23:13:22.069899-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.649166-07:00","date_filed":"2024-01-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":5,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-01-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":17,"description":"SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Tammion Valentine ; served on 1/8/2024. (Lipman, Matthew) (Entered: 01/23/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/393907209/","id":393907209,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/402986080/","id":402986080,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-17T10:11:29.058281-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-17T10:11:29.063183-07:00","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":"2024-06-17T10:11:29.048780-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-17T10:11:29.048790-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-17","time_filed":"11:52:47","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/378356547/","id":378356547,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/386024442/","id":386024442,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/10/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-02-13T14:24:22.750199-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.802073-07:00","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":"10","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016619725","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-13T14:24:22.734765-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.791002-07:00","date_filed":"2024-02-13","time_filed":"16:02:25","entry_number":10,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":28,"description":"ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 2/13/2024) (ndt) (Entered: 02/13/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/377275386/","id":377275386,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/384921026/","id":384921026,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/8/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-02-01T10:23:27.173310-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.726573-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"8","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016590133","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order to Show Cause/Order to Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-01T10:23:27.138397-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.715360-07:00","date_filed":"2024-02-01","time_filed":"11:51:54","entry_number":8,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":23,"description":"ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Court ORDERS the following: By 2/7/2024, Valentine must SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why she has failed to file an answer. Failure to comply with this Order may result in default judgment against Valentine without further notice. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 2/1/2024) (cfk) (Entered: 02/01/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/375241090/","id":375241090,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/382841505/","id":382841505,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/4/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.213609-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.638479-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"4","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177016513651","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.201218-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.626883-07:00","date_filed":"2024-01-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":4,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-01-03.004","pacer_sequence_number":15,"description":"Summons Issued as to Tammion Valentine, Valentine Travel Express LLC. (agc) (Entered: 01/03/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/375241089/","id":375241089,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68133189/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/382841504/","id":382841504,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68133189/3/southwest-marine-and-general-insurance-company-v-valentine/","date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.185513-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.615183-07:00","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":"177016513622","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-01-10T00:48:56.165490-08:00","date_modified":"2024-10-23T08:33:42.604772-07:00","date_filed":"2024-01-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":3,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-01-03.003","pacer_sequence_number":13,"description":"New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (agc) (Entered: 01/03/2024)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=68133189&page_size=40"}