Mrs 305 Enterprises LLC v. Markel Insurance Company
| Mrs 305 Enterprises LLC doing business as Anytime Fitness |
| Markel Insurance Company |
| 3:2025cv02583 |
| September 23, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ELECTRONIC Order Transferring to Another District.The Court previously entered an order notifying the parties that the undersigned intended to transfer this case sua sponte to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division based on the factual allegations giving rise to Plaintiff's claims. Doc. No. 6. The Court allowed the parties an opportunity to respond prior to transfer and expressly warned that a party's silence would be construed as non-opposition to the proposed transfer. Id. The parties' deadline to respond has passed and neither party filed a brief in response.The Eastern District of Texas is a venue where this action might have been brought as Plaintiff's claims arise out of alleged damage to insured property that is located in Collin County. Doc. No. at 1-1 at 2-3. Further, the Court has weighed the private and public factors to be considered in a § 1404(a) analysis and concludes they weigh in favor of transferring venue to the Eastern District of Texas. In its discretion, the Court concludes that transfer of this matter to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas is proper pursuant to § 1404(a). Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989) ("Decisions to effect 1404 transfers are committed to the sound discretion of the transferring judge, and.... [s]uch transfers may be made sua sponte.").This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3); see 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 10/7/2025) (chmb)
|
| Interdistrict Transfer to Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division; notice sent via email. All documents available electronically. If receiving court cannot upload, documents are available from PACER (record does not contain restricted documents). Counsel advised to file future documents in Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division. (ndt) |
| Case transferred from NDTX has been opened in Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division as case number 4:25-CV-01098. (kcr) |
| Filing 9 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Markel Insurance Company. Amendment to #2 Cert. Of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement. . (Wolbert, Clinton) |
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC STANDING ORDER: This Court requires all counsel of record to review and comply with the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements as well as the Local Civil Rules for the Northern District of Texas upon making an appearance in a matter before this Court. These can be found at # Judge Specific Requirements and # Local Civil Rules . Further, counsel shall refer to this Court's Judge Specific Requirements and the Local Civil Rules prior to calling chambers with any questions. The Court calls specific attention to Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), which addresses the disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence, and Local Civil Rule 83.10, which address the requirement of local counsel. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/25/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/25/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendant Markel Insurance Company of Indiana removed this case to federal court on September 23, 2025, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Doc. No. 1 at 2. Because Plaintiff originally filed suit in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, removal to this Court was proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (case filed in state court may be removed by defendant to the federal district court "for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending."); see also Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Herzog Servs., Inc., 990 F.Supp. 503, 504 (N.D. Tex. 1998)(McBryde, J.). Nevertheless, even where venue is procedurally proper under § 1441(a), a district court may transfer a removed case under § 1404(a). See § 1390(c); see also Henry v. Hallahan, 2015 WL 1467103, at *2 (E.D. Tex. March 30, 2015) (even though case was properly removed to that district court, "venue is not necessarily frozen here and a 1404(a) analysis is still available.")."Section 1404 authorizes a district court '[f]or convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice' to move venue to any other district or division where the suit might have been brought. Decisions to effect 1404 transfers are committed to the sound discretion of the transferring judge, and... [s]uch transfers may be made sua sponte." Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant arise out of alleged damage to Plaintiff's equipment and property (the "Property") that was insured by Defendant. See Doc. No. at 1-1 at 3-4. The Property at issue is located in Collin County. See id. at 2-3. Collin County is located in the Eastern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3). Other than the suit having been originally filed in state court in Dallas County, it is not apparent from this record that there are any connections (substantial or otherwise) to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. See also Doc. No. 1-1 at 2 (in its state court petition, Plaintiff alleges "venue is proper in Collin County, Texas, where the cause of action accrued."). Before transferring this case to the Eastern District on its own motion, the Court will allow the parties an opportunity to be heard. The parties may each file a brief on whether this case is appropriate for transfer under § 1404(a) by October 6, 2025. The parties' respective briefs shall not exceed 15 pages in length (excluding any table of contents and table of authorities) and there shall be no responsive briefs unless otherwise ordered by the Court. If a party does not file a brief in accordance with this Order, the Court will construe that party's silence as non-opposition to the proposed transfer. Further, in lieu of filing separate briefs, the parties may file a joint or agreed notice of non-opposition to the transfer of this case by October 6, 2025. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/24/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 5 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Markel Insurance Company. Notice of Removal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A- Petition, #2 Exhibit(s) B- Citation, #3 Exhibit(s) C- PIR, #4 Exhibit(s) D- Certificate of Formation, #5 Exhibit(s) E- Answer, #6 Exhibit(s) F- Docket, #7 Exhibit(s) G- Index, #8 Exhibit(s) H- Civil Cover, #9 Cover Sheet Supplement I- Supp. Civil Cover, #10 Exhibit(s) J- DWOP) (Wolbert, Clinton) |
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendant removed this case to federal court invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Doc. No. 1 at 2. Defendant properly alleges its own citizenship but fails to do so for Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff is a limited liability company, Defendant correctly identifies that Plaintiff's citizenship is determined by that of its members. Id.. Defendant then alleges Plaintiff has "only one member", which is "Ogun Olana Enterprises Inc." Id. at 3. However, in alleging the member's citizenship, Defendant alleges only that Ogun, which is a corporation, "is incorporated in, and organized under, the laws of the State of Texas." Id. Defendant fails to include the State in which Ogun's principal place of business is located. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). Because Plaintiff's citizenship has not been properly alleged, Defendant, as the party seeking the federal forum, failed to meet its burden of establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendant may amend its Notice of Removal to cure this jurisdictional deficiency by October 1, 2025. If Defendant fails to amend or fails to do so sufficiently, the Court will remand this case without further notice. See Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (federal court has no power to adjudicate claims where subject matter jurisdiction does not exist); 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/24/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 3 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. (kcr) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Markel Insurance Company. (Clerk QC note: Affiliate entry indicated). (Wolbert, Clinton) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Markel Insurance Company. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-15861484) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A- Petition, #2 Exhibit(s) B- Citation, #3 Exhibit(s) C- PIR, #4 Exhibit(s) D- Certificate of Formation, #5 Exhibit(s) E- Answer, #6 Exhibit(s) F- Docket, #7 Exhibit(s) G- Index, #8 Exhibit(s) H- Civil Cover, #9 Exhibit(s) I- Supp. Civil Cover, #10 Exhibit(s) J- DWOP) (Wolbert, Clinton) (Attachment 8, 9 flattened on 9/24/2025) (kcr). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Mrs 305 Enterprises LLC v. Markel Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mrs 305 Enterprises LLC doing business as Anytime Fitness | |
| Represented By: | Richard Hall Elliott |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Markel Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Paige C Jones |
| Represented By: | Clinton James Wolbert |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
