Preview
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 6
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 30, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Electronically Filed
MCALLEN DIVISION 4/3/2023 10:45 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo
JOSE DEGOLLADO, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:23-CV-00037
§
ARTUR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Degollado’s Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 9). After
considering the Motion, Defendants Artur Logistics Corp. and Mirian Tsamalashvili’s Response
and included Motion to Transfer Venue, (Dkt. No. 11), and the relevant law, the Court is of the
opinion that Plaintiff’s Motion should be GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion should be
DENIED.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed his Original Petition in Hidalgo County court on January 3, 2023, alleging
he had been injured in a vehicle collision with Defendant Tsamalashvili and asserting causes of
action against Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili for negligence and employer liability.
(Dkt. No. 1, Exh. A). Plaintiff additionally asserted a cause of action against Defendant Progressive
County Mutual Insurance Co. under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 37.004 for a judicial
declaration of his right to receive coverage under his underinsured motorist policy with Defendant
Progressive. Id. Plaintiff and Defendant Progressive are both citizens of Texas, but Defendants
Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili are not. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4).
1/6
Electronically Filed
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 6
4/3/2023 10:45 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo
Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili removed the case to this Court on February
3, 2023, arguing that this Court had diversity jurisdiction over the action because Defendant
Progressive had been “improperly or fraudulently joined in this matter solely in an attempt to
destroy diversity.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on March 3,
2023, (Dkt. No. 9), and Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili filed their Response and
Motion to Transfer Venue to the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas on March 10,
2023 (Dkt. No. 11).
II. Discussion
“To remove a case based on diversity, the diverse defendant must demonstrate that all of
the prerequisites of diversity jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are satisfied.” Smallwood
v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “A case may be removed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in
controversy is greater than $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs.” Allen v. Walmart Stores,
L.L.C., 907 F.3d 170, 183 (5th Cir. 2018).
The doctrine of improper joinder constitutes a “narrow exception” to the rule of complete
diversity, and the burden of persuasion on a party claiming improper joinder is a “heavy one.”
Campbell v. Stone Ins., 509 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408
F.3d 177, 183 (5th Cir. 2005)). The Fifth Circuit has recognized two ways to establish improper
joinder: (1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to
establish a cause of action against the nondiverse defendant in state court. Smallwood, 385 F.3d at
573 (quoting Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 646–47 (5th Cir. 2003)).
There has been no claim of actual fraud; therefore, this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether
a reasonable basis exists for predicting that Plaintiff might be able to recover against Defendant
Progressive, the nondiverse Defendant. Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (citing Travis, 326 F.3d at
2/6
Electronically Filed
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 6
4/3/2023 10:45 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo
648). Smallwood likened this inquiry to the standard of review for evaluating a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Fifth Circuit
has since clarified that courts determine improper joinder with reference to the federal (rather than
state) pleading standard embodied in the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. See id.; Int’l Energy Ventures
Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 207–08 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly,
the improper joinder analysis requires a determination of whether the plaintiff has pleaded “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Int’l Energy Ventures, 818 F.3d at 208
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Ordinarily, no improper joinder exists if a plaintiff survives this Rule 12(b)(6)-type
analysis. Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573. However, in cases “in which a plaintiff has stated a claim,
but has misstated or omitted discrete [and undisputed] facts that would determine the propriety of
joinder,” the district court may, in its discretion, “pierce the pleadings” and conduct a summary
judgment-type inquiry. Id. at 573-74. At all times, the court must focus its inquiry “on the joinder,
not the merits of the plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 573. In doing so, the court considers “all unchallenged
factual allegations, including those alleged in the complaint, in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff,” and “[a]ny contested issues of fact and any ambiguities of state law must be resolved in
[the plaintiff’s] favor.” Travis, 326 F.3d at 649.
It is agreed by the Parties that Defendant Progressive is a citizen of Texas for purposes of
jurisdiction, and Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili argue that Defendant Progressive
was improperly joined in order to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4). In
his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that joinder of Defendant Progressive in this action is
proper under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. (Dkt. No. 9 at 1).
The Texas Insurance Code requires insurers to offer uninsured or underinsured motorist
coverage (UIM coverage) in order to cover damage arising out of collisions where the at-fault
3/6
Electronically Filed
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 4 of 6
4/3/2023 10:45 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo
motorist’s insurance is insufficient. Tex. Ins. Code § 1952.101. Insurance providers are “under no
contractual duty to pay benefits until the insured obtains a judgment establishing the liability and
underinsured status of the other motorist.” Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809,
818 (Tex. 2006); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 503 S.W.3d 450, 453 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2016, no pet.) (“[A]s a prerequisite to establishing entitlement to UIM benefits, a plaintiff must
first establish (1) that she is legally entitled to recover from an underinsured motorist and (2) that
her damages exceed the policy limits of the underinsured motorist’s policy.”).
The court judgment required before an insurer is obligated to pay UIM benefits does not
have to be a judgment against the at-fault motorist; Texas law permits an action directly against
the insurer under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to “establish[] the liability and
underinsured status of the other motorist.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 627 S.W.3d 263, 266 (Tex.
2021) (determining that “an insurance carrier’s liability for benefits under the UIM policy may be
established in a declaratory judgment action”); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 37.001–11.
Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili argue that the declaratory judgment action
is improper because the “determination of liability and damages, if any, will be determined in the
suit between Plaintiff and Artur Logistics Corporation and Mirian Tsamalashvili. The findings in
that suit will determine the obligations, if any,” of Defendant Progressive. (Dkt. No. 11 at 3–4).
This argument is incompatible with Irwin, which permits liability to be established in a declaratory
judgment action against the insurer. Irwin, 627 S.W.3d at 453. It is certainly possible that the Texas
state court may choose to sever the two actions, “[b]ut the Fifth Circuit has foreclosed inquiry into
whether a state court would sever the claims for the purpose of determining improper joinder.”
Stelly v. ATM Trucking, LLC, 2021 WL 5771933 at *5 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (citing Williams v.
Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y., 18 F.4th 806, 815 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[I]f there is a possibility of recovery
4/6
Electronically Filed
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 5 of 6
4/3/2023 10:45 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo
against both defendants but one defendant believes the case should be severed, there is nothing to
prevent seeking that severance in state court.”).
Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili argue that Irwin is inapplicable because a
declaratory judgment was the only court judgment available to the plaintiff in Irwin because the
at-fault motorist had settled out of court. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2). The Court does not agree that this is a
“key and controlling difference” between this case and Irwin. Id. The Irwin court did not condition
its holding that declaratory judgments may be used to establish liability for purposes of UIM
benefits on whether liability could or had already been established in another proceeding. Such a
holding would defeat the purpose of the declaratory judgment action as a mechanism to obtain a
court judgment without a case involving the at-fault motorist. “Irwin made clear that a court
judgment on the liability and underinsured status of the alleged tortfeasor can be obtained through
a personal-injury action against the alleged tortfeasor or an action against the insurer for
declaratory relief.” Stelly, 2021 WL 5771933 at *3. In the absence of contrary authority, this Court
finds no reason to impose a requirement that these actions must be separated. See MBM Fin. Corp.
v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660, 669 (Tex. 2009) (“[T]he existence of another
adequate remedy does not bar the right to maintain an action for declaratory judgment.”).
This Court may only consider whether there is a possibility of recovery against Defendant
Progressive in Texas state court. Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Progressive is permitted by
state law, so Defendant Progressive was not improperly joined. As this is an action involving at
least one plaintiff and defendant from the same state, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. The case should be remanded and the state court may decide whether severance is
appropriate.
Because this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, Defendants Artur Logistics and
Tsamalashvili’s Motion to Transfer Venue should be denied.
5/6
Electronically Filed
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 6 of 6
4/3/2023 10:45 AM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is
GRANTED and Defendant Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the
Western District of Texas is DENIED.
It is additionally ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the 275th Judicial District
Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
SO ORDERED March 30, 2023, at McAllen, Texas.
______________________________
Randy Crane
Chief United States District Judge
6/6
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Grace Silvas on behalf of Todd Hunter, Jr.
Bar No. 24087774
grace@lileswhite.com
Envelope ID: 74261013
Filing Code Description: Notice
Filing Description: Letter to Court Re Order
Status as of 4/3/2023 11:38 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Mirian Tamalashvili
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brian G.Cano bcano@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
Stephen Mengis smengis@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
Kourtney Mouton kmouton@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
Megan Moore mmoore@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Liles WhiteNotifications efiling@lileswhite.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
Scott ASeelhoff sseelhoff@umhlaw.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
LILES WHITE PLLC LILES WHITE PLLC efiling@lileswhite.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT
Preview
Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 6 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 30, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Electronically Filed MCALLEN DIVISION 4/3/2023 10:45 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo JOSE DEGOLLADO, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:23-CV-00037 § ARTUR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER Now before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Degollado’s Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 9). After considering the Motion, Defendants Artur Logistics Corp. and Mirian Tsamalashvili’s Response and included Motion to Transfer Venue, (Dkt. No. 11), and the relevant law, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff’s Motion should be GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion should be DENIED. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff filed his Original Petition in Hidalgo County court on January 3, 2023, alleging he had been injured in a vehicle collision with Defendant Tsamalashvili and asserting causes of action against Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili for negligence and employer liability. (Dkt. No. 1, Exh. A). Plaintiff additionally asserted a cause of action against Defendant Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 37.004 for a judicial declaration of his right to receive coverage under his underinsured motorist policy with Defendant Progressive. Id. Plaintiff and Defendant Progressive are both citizens of Texas, but Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili are not. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4). 1/6 Electronically Filed Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 6 4/3/2023 10:45 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili removed the case to this Court on February 3, 2023, arguing that this Court had diversity jurisdiction over the action because Defendant Progressive had been “improperly or fraudulently joined in this matter solely in an attempt to destroy diversity.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on March 3, 2023, (Dkt. No. 9), and Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili filed their Response and Motion to Transfer Venue to the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas on March 10, 2023 (Dkt. No. 11). II. Discussion “To remove a case based on diversity, the diverse defendant must demonstrate that all of the prerequisites of diversity jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are satisfied.” Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “A case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs.” Allen v. Walmart Stores, L.L.C., 907 F.3d 170, 183 (5th Cir. 2018). The doctrine of improper joinder constitutes a “narrow exception” to the rule of complete diversity, and the burden of persuasion on a party claiming improper joinder is a “heavy one.” Campbell v. Stone Ins., 509 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 183 (5th Cir. 2005)). The Fifth Circuit has recognized two ways to establish improper joinder: (1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the nondiverse defendant in state court. Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (quoting Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 646–47 (5th Cir. 2003)). There has been no claim of actual fraud; therefore, this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether a reasonable basis exists for predicting that Plaintiff might be able to recover against Defendant Progressive, the nondiverse Defendant. Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 (citing Travis, 326 F.3d at 2/6 Electronically Filed Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 6 4/3/2023 10:45 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo 648). Smallwood likened this inquiry to the standard of review for evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Fifth Circuit has since clarified that courts determine improper joinder with reference to the federal (rather than state) pleading standard embodied in the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. See id.; Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 207–08 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the improper joinder analysis requires a determination of whether the plaintiff has pleaded “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Int’l Energy Ventures, 818 F.3d at 208 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Ordinarily, no improper joinder exists if a plaintiff survives this Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis. Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573. However, in cases “in which a plaintiff has stated a claim, but has misstated or omitted discrete [and undisputed] facts that would determine the propriety of joinder,” the district court may, in its discretion, “pierce the pleadings” and conduct a summary judgment-type inquiry. Id. at 573-74. At all times, the court must focus its inquiry “on the joinder, not the merits of the plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 573. In doing so, the court considers “all unchallenged factual allegations, including those alleged in the complaint, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” and “[a]ny contested issues of fact and any ambiguities of state law must be resolved in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” Travis, 326 F.3d at 649. It is agreed by the Parties that Defendant Progressive is a citizen of Texas for purposes of jurisdiction, and Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili argue that Defendant Progressive was improperly joined in order to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4). In his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that joinder of Defendant Progressive in this action is proper under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. (Dkt. No. 9 at 1). The Texas Insurance Code requires insurers to offer uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage (UIM coverage) in order to cover damage arising out of collisions where the at-fault 3/6 Electronically Filed Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 4 of 6 4/3/2023 10:45 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo motorist’s insurance is insufficient. Tex. Ins. Code § 1952.101. Insurance providers are “under no contractual duty to pay benefits until the insured obtains a judgment establishing the liability and underinsured status of the other motorist.” Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809, 818 (Tex. 2006); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 503 S.W.3d 450, 453 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (“[A]s a prerequisite to establishing entitlement to UIM benefits, a plaintiff must first establish (1) that she is legally entitled to recover from an underinsured motorist and (2) that her damages exceed the policy limits of the underinsured motorist’s policy.”). The court judgment required before an insurer is obligated to pay UIM benefits does not have to be a judgment against the at-fault motorist; Texas law permits an action directly against the insurer under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to “establish[] the liability and underinsured status of the other motorist.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 627 S.W.3d 263, 266 (Tex. 2021) (determining that “an insurance carrier’s liability for benefits under the UIM policy may be established in a declaratory judgment action”); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 37.001–11. Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili argue that the declaratory judgment action is improper because the “determination of liability and damages, if any, will be determined in the suit between Plaintiff and Artur Logistics Corporation and Mirian Tsamalashvili. The findings in that suit will determine the obligations, if any,” of Defendant Progressive. (Dkt. No. 11 at 3–4). This argument is incompatible with Irwin, which permits liability to be established in a declaratory judgment action against the insurer. Irwin, 627 S.W.3d at 453. It is certainly possible that the Texas state court may choose to sever the two actions, “[b]ut the Fifth Circuit has foreclosed inquiry into whether a state court would sever the claims for the purpose of determining improper joinder.” Stelly v. ATM Trucking, LLC, 2021 WL 5771933 at *5 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (citing Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y., 18 F.4th 806, 815 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[I]f there is a possibility of recovery 4/6 Electronically Filed Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 5 of 6 4/3/2023 10:45 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo against both defendants but one defendant believes the case should be severed, there is nothing to prevent seeking that severance in state court.”). Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili argue that Irwin is inapplicable because a declaratory judgment was the only court judgment available to the plaintiff in Irwin because the at-fault motorist had settled out of court. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2). The Court does not agree that this is a “key and controlling difference” between this case and Irwin. Id. The Irwin court did not condition its holding that declaratory judgments may be used to establish liability for purposes of UIM benefits on whether liability could or had already been established in another proceeding. Such a holding would defeat the purpose of the declaratory judgment action as a mechanism to obtain a court judgment without a case involving the at-fault motorist. “Irwin made clear that a court judgment on the liability and underinsured status of the alleged tortfeasor can be obtained through a personal-injury action against the alleged tortfeasor or an action against the insurer for declaratory relief.” Stelly, 2021 WL 5771933 at *3. In the absence of contrary authority, this Court finds no reason to impose a requirement that these actions must be separated. See MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660, 669 (Tex. 2009) (“[T]he existence of another adequate remedy does not bar the right to maintain an action for declaratory judgment.”). This Court may only consider whether there is a possibility of recovery against Defendant Progressive in Texas state court. Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Progressive is permitted by state law, so Defendant Progressive was not improperly joined. As this is an action involving at least one plaintiff and defendant from the same state, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The case should be remanded and the state court may decide whether severance is appropriate. Because this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, Defendants Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili’s Motion to Transfer Venue should be denied. 5/6 Electronically Filed Case 7:23-cv-00037 Document 18 Filed on 03/30/23 in TXSD Page 6 of 6 4/3/2023 10:45 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Krystal Hidalgo III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and Defendant Artur Logistics and Tsamalashvili’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Western District of Texas is DENIED. It is additionally ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the 275th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. SO ORDERED March 30, 2023, at McAllen, Texas. ______________________________ Randy Crane Chief United States District Judge 6/6 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Grace Silvas on behalf of Todd Hunter, Jr. Bar No. 24087774 grace@lileswhite.com Envelope ID: 74261013 Filing Code Description: Notice Filing Description: Letter to Court Re Order Status as of 4/3/2023 11:38 AM CST Associated Case Party: Mirian Tamalashvili Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brian G.Cano bcano@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT Stephen Mengis smengis@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT Kourtney Mouton kmouton@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT Megan Moore mmoore@feesmith.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Liles WhiteNotifications efiling@lileswhite.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT Scott ASeelhoff sseelhoff@umhlaw.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT LILES WHITE PLLC LILES WHITE PLLC efiling@lileswhite.com 4/3/2023 11:22:47 AM SENT