{"cached_at":"2026-09-12T10:48:54.423681+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69261349","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","id":69261349,"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/10366143/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2448/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-15T09:19:36.325866-07:00","date_modified":"2025-07-06T01:53:57.523620-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Reed C. O'Connor","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-10-24T08:44:13.269303-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-10-14","date_terminated":"2025-03-27","date_last_filing":"2025-03-27","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Citizens Concerned About Wolf Hollow v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc","docket_number":"4:24-cv-00983","docket_number_core":"2400983","docket_number_raw":"4:24-cv-00983","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"4","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"O","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"395717","cause":"28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)","nature_of_suit":"Real Property: Torts to Land","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-10-15T09:19:36.319944-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/420553651/","id":420553651,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/434529708/","id":434529708,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/37/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2025-03-27T07:18:27.775778-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-27T01:46:39.873024-07:00","sha1":"9dc6d0d057ac9cb0a03cbd34324dc239a40cc32d","page_count":5,"file_size":219085,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.395717/gov.uscourts.txnd.395717.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.395717/gov.uscourts.txnd.395717.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:24-cv-00983-O         Document 37        Filed 03/27/25      Page 1 of 5      PageID 907\n\n\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                FORT WORTH DIVISION\n\n CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT                        \u00a7\n WOLF HOLLOW                                     \u00a7\n                                                 \u00a7\n      Plaintiff,                                 \u00a7\n                                                 \u00a7\n v.                                              \u00a7   Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-00983-O\n                                                 \u00a7\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS,                      \u00a7\n INC.                                            \u00a7\n                                                 \u00a7\n      Defendant.                                 \u00a7\n\n  ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF\n               THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n         The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in\n\nthis case. ECF No. 29. Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc. filed objections (ECF No. 31), and\n\nPlaintiff Citizens Concerned about Wolf Hollow responded (ECF No. 35). The Court has\n\nconcluded a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to\n\nwhich an objection was made. The Court determines that the Findings, Conclusions, and\n\nRecommendation (\u201cFCR\u201d) in this case (ECF No. 29) should be and is hereby ACCEPTED, and\n\nDefendant\u2019s objections OVERRULED.\n\n         I.        LEGAL STANDARD\n\n         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 provides that \u201ca party may serve and file specific\n\nwritten objections to the proposed findings and recommendations\u201d of a magistrate judge related to\n\na dispositive motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). An objection must be \u201csufficiently specific to put\n\nthe district court on notice of the urged error.\u201d Williams v. K & B Equip. Co., Inc., 724 F.2d 508,\n\n511 (5th Cir. 1984). A \u201cdistrict judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate\n\njudge\u2019s disposition that has been properly objected to.\u201d FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).\n\n\n                                                 1\n\fCase 4:24-cv-00983-O            Document 37         Filed 03/27/25       Page 2 of 5      PageID 908\n\n\n\n          II.    ANALYSIS\n\n          Defendant contests the Magistrate Judge\u2019s conclusion that Defendant has not established\n\nthe requisite amount in controversy by a preponderance of evidence to confer diversity jurisdiction.\n\nSpecifically, Defendant objects to (1) the finding that \u201c[Plaintiff\u2019s] Petition does not show on its\n\nface that the claims at issue exceed $75,000\u201d; (2) \u201cthe conclusion that the amount Plaintiff pleads\n\nas loss of property value\u2014which [Plaintiff] says justifies a permanent injunction\u2014is not the\n\n\u2018object of the litigation\u2019 under Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm\u2019n, 432 U.S. 333,\n\n347 (1977)\u201d; and (3) \u201cthe finding that the pecuniary consequences to the Defendant cannot be\n\nconsidered when determining the value of the object of litigation.\u201d1\n\n          \u201cIn actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in\n\ncontroversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.\u201d Hunt v. Wash State Apple\n\nAdvert. Comm\u2019n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977). The \u201camount in controversy is \u2018the value of the right\n\nto be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.\u2019\u201d Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Lou-Con Inc.,\n\n293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (5th Cir.\n\n1983)). The Fifth Circuit follows the \u201cplaintiff-viewpoint rule,\u201d in which \u201c[t]he value to the\n\nplaintiff of the right to be enforced or protected determines the amount in controversy.\u201d Alfonso v.\n\nHillsborough County Aviation Auth., 308 F.2d 724, 727 (5th Cir. 1962); see Garcia v. Koch Oil\n\nCo. of Texas Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 640 n.4 (5th Cir. 2003); see Vraney v. County of Pinellas, 250\n\nF.2d 617, 618 (5th Cir. 1958).\n\n          Defendant\u2019s first and second arguments are two sides of the same coin, so the Court\n\naddresses them in concert. In sum, Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge overlooked\n\nevidence in Plaintiff\u2019s Petition stating an amount-in-controversy.2 The Petition cites \u201ca complete\n\n\n1\n    Def.\u2019s Objections to Recommendation for Remand 2\u20133, ECF No. 31.\n2\n    Id. at 5\u20138.\n\n                                                    2\n\fCase 4:24-cv-00983-O           Document 37         Filed 03/27/25        Page 3 of 5    PageID 909\n\n\n\nloss in market value of their homes\u201d as one example of harm to the individual Plaintiffs and\n\nincludes an affidavit that cites one Plaintiff\u2019s property value as $650,000.3 There is no precedent\n\nfor what the \u201cobject of the litigation\u201d is in a private nuisance case. Accordingly, the Magistrate\n\nJudge concluded, \u201c[s]ince the Fifth Circuit has yet to decide this precise issue, the Court is not\n\npersuaded that the value of the property is determinative of the amount in controversy for a\n\nnuisance claim.\u201d4 \u201cIn cases such as this one, the \u2018object\u2019 of the litigation does not turn on the value\n\nor decrease in value of [Plaintiff\u2019s] members\u2019 properties.\u201d5\n\n        Though the Court would not cast its holding as covering nuisance cases generally, it agrees\n\nwith the Magistrate Judge\u2019s conclusion that Defendant has not established by a preponderance of\n\nthe evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met. Texas law protects a homeowner\u2019s\n\nright to use and enjoy his property without substantial interference from conditions such as noise\n\nand vibrations. See generally Crosstex N. Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex.\n\n2016). Here, Plaintiff alleges that \u201cthe low frequency noise and vibrations from [Defendant\u2019s]\n\npersistent and excessively loud operating equipment are the central focus of this suit.\u201d6 Plaintiff\n\nseeks only \u201ca permanent injunction enjoining [Defendant] from creating, causing, or allowing any\n\nunreasonable noise and vibrations from its operations at the MARA Cryptomine.\u201d7\n\n        The issue presented here is if and how the Court can assign a dollar amount to an injunction,\n\nwhere Plaintiff requests no monetary damages. Should the Court look to the money damages that\n\nwould have been available under state law if Plaintiff had sought money damages? The damage\n\ncalculations vary based on the type of nuisance, so what information should a petition include such\n\n\n\n3\n  Notice of Removal (Pl.\u2019s Pet.), \u00b6 86, ECF No. 1-6; (Lakey Aff.), \u00b6 18, ECF No. 1-6.\n4\n  FCR, 8, ECF No. 29.\n5\n  Id.\n6\n  Notice of Removal (Pl.\u2019s Pet.), \u00b6 12, ECF No. 1-6.\n7\n  Id. \u00b6 82.\n\n                                                    3\n\fCase 4:24-cv-00983-O            Document 37        Filed 03/27/25        Page 4 of 5       PageID 910\n\n\n\nthat the Court could make that determination at this early juncture? Id. 610\u201312. Defendant argues\n\nthe value of the injunction is obvious because one Plaintiff cited the value of his property and\n\n    improvements to his land in an affidavit accompanying the Petition.8 But Defendant fails to cite\n\nstate law in support, which would explain why that amount is material in a private nuisance case.\n\n          A private nuisance case is different than those \u201cinvolving deeds of trust and equitable title\n\n. . . [w]hen a party seeks such specific relief, [and] the litigation can call into question \u2018the validity\n\nof a contract or a right to property . . . in its entirety.\u2019\u201d Durbois v. Deutsche Bank Nat\u2019l Tr. Co. as\n\nTr. of Holders of AAMES Mortg. Inv. Tr. 20054 Mortg. Backed Notes, 37 F.4th 1053, 1058 (5th\n\nCir. 2022). In those cases, the contract or property are dispositive of the value of the injunction.\n\nBut given the lack of clarity here, and that Defendant does not provide the Court a legal basis to\n\ndetermine whether the amount in controversy is satisfied, Defendant fails to carry its burden.\n\n          Two well-established rules support the Court\u2019s conclusion. First, the \u201cbasis upon which\n\njurisdiction depends must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established\n\nargumentatively or by mere inference.\u201d Ill. Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636\n\n(5th Cir. 1983). Second, \u201cbecause removal raises significant federalism concerns, the removal\n\nstatute is strictly construed and any doubt as to the propriety of removal should be resolved in\n\nfavor of remand.\u201d Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Court overrules\n\nDefendant\u2019s first and second objections to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s FCR.\n\n          Finally, the Court overrules Defendant\u2019s third objection that the pecuniary consequences\n\nto Defendant should be considered when determining the value of the object of litigation.9\n\nDefendant explains that to grant an injunction for nuisance under Texas law, a court would\n\nbalance the equities and necessarily consider the defendant\u2019s consequences in complying with the\n\n\n8\n    Def.\u2019s Objections to Recommendation for Remand 5, ECF No. 31.\n9\n    Id. at 9\u201311.\n\n                                                    4\n\fCase 4:24-cv-00983-O         Document 37        Filed 03/27/25      Page 5 of 5      PageID 911\n\n\n\ninjunction.10 But because the Fifth Circuit follows the \u201cplaintiff-viewpoint rule,\u201d in which the\n\ndefendant\u2019s cost of compliance is irrelevant, it is not clear this is a proper consideration.\n\nAccordingly, the Court declines to accept Defendant\u2019s argument. See Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of\n\nTexas Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 640 n.4 (5th Cir. 2003); Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth.,\n\n308 F.2d 724, 727 (5th Cir. 1962); Vraney v. County of Pinellas, 250 F.2d 617, 618 (5th Cir. 1958).\n\n           III.   CONCLUSION\n\n           Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff\u2019s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12) is\n\nGRANTED; this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; and the case is REMANDED to the\n\n335th Judicial District Court of Hood County, Texas.\n\n           SO ORDERED on this 27th day of March, 2025.\n\n\n                                                     _____________________________________\n                                                     Reed O\u2019Connor\n                                                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n10\n     Id. at 10.\n\n                                                 5\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-03-28T02:46:46.221699-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017569401","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND Order of Dismissal or Administrative Closure","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-27T07:18:27.760340-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-27T01:46:39.854159-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-27","time_filed":"08:37:33","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":111,"description":" ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court determines that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (\"FCR\")   in this case (ECF No.  29 ) should be and is hereby ACCEPTED,  and Defendant's   objections OVERRULED.  It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No.  12 ) is GRANTED; this  Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; and the case is REMANDED to the 335th  Judicial District Court of Hood County, Texas.   (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 3/27/2025) (saw)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418239517/","id":418239517,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432031601/","id":432031601,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/34/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2025-03-04T13:15:14.568203-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-04T13:15:14.575465-08:00","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":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017510112","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-04T13:15:14.541118-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-04T13:15:14.546182-08:00","date_filed":"2025-03-04","time_filed":"14:33:00","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":102,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/413161731/","id":413161731,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/426733318/","id":426733318,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/26/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-10T10:19:01.834644-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-10T10:19:01.839769-08:00","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":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017381001","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Referring Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-01-10T10:19:01.812135-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-10T10:19:01.818313-08:00","date_filed":"2025-01-10","time_filed":"12:02:47","entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-01-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":80,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/410191364/","id":410191364,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/422844121/","id":422844121,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/21/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-12-05T11:21:33.323508-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-05T11:21:33.327549-08:00","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":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017310097","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Referring Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-12-05T11:21:33.308755-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-05T11:21:33.311406-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-05","time_filed":"12:27:15","entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":65,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/410181877/","id":410181877,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/422832109/","id":422832109,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/19/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-12-05T10:54:34.609141-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-05T10:54:34.614058-08:00","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":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017309968","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-12-05T10:54:34.577008-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-05T10:54:34.583285-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-05","time_filed":"12:00:59","entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":61,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/410181834/","id":410181834,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/422832057/","id":422832057,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/20/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-12-05T10:54:33.753276-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-05T10:54:33.764121-08:00","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":"177017310030","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-12-05T10:54:33.734081-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-05T10:54:33.739243-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-05","time_filed":"12:17:31","entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":63,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/407916532/","id":407916532,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/419781797/","id":419781797,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/11/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-11-12T14:09:27.258702-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-12T14:09:27.262735-08:00","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":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017261391","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-11-12T14:09:27.243628-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-12T14:09:27.246492-08:00","date_filed":"2024-11-12","time_filed":"15:42:59","entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-11-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":40,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/406467107/","id":406467107,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/417756888/","id":417756888,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/6/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-28T16:55:10.807784-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-28T16:55:10.810701-07:00","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":"177017228365","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-28T16:55:10.795667-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-28T16:55:10.798321-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-28","time_filed":"18:26:44","entry_number":6,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":29,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/405420530/","id":405420530,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/416353566/","id":416353566,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69261349/4/citizens-concerned-about-wolf-hollow-v-marathon-digital-holdings-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-17T10:07:00.973537-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-17T10:07:00.976951-07:00","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":"177017203808","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order for Scheduling Order Proposal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-17T10:07:00.960833-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-17T10:07:00.963520-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-17","time_filed":"11:11:11","entry_number":4,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":23,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/405146111/","id":405146111,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69261349/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/415990162/","id":415990162,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-15T09:19:36.405828-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-15T09:19:36.408916-07:00","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":"2024-10-15T09:19:36.398309-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-15T09:19:36.398320-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-15","time_filed":"10:04:26","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69261349&page_size=40"}