Hamilton v. Shamrock Cartage Inc et al
| Arthur Oscar Hamilton |
| Brandon Smith, Shamrock Cartage Inc and Electrolux Home Products Inc |
| 3:2026cv02316 |
| July 13, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Reed O'Connor |
| Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 28, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 REPLY filed by Brandon Smith re: #9 Response/Objection (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit(s) PL 1st Amended Petition, #3 Exhibit(s) Def Shamrock Orig Answer) (Lagow, Drew) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Arthur Oscar Hamilton re: #1 Notice of Removal,,,,, (Ohiri, Christian) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Consent to Remove re: #1 Notice of Removal,,,,, filed by Shamrock Cartage Inc (Lagow, Drew) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE filed by Arthur Oscar Hamilton re: #4 MOTION to Dismiss (Ohiri, Christian) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE filed by Arthur Oscar Hamilton re: #2 Order Setting Deadline/Hearing,, #1 Notice of Removal,,,,, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s)) (Ohiri, Christian) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Vacate filed by Arthur Oscar Hamilton with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Ohiri, Christian) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Brandon Smith with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1) (Lagow, Drew) |
Filing 2
ORDER: The Notice of Removal alleges that Brandon Smith is improperly joined as a party in this dispute. Id. at 2, 47. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a response to the improper joinder allegation or, alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice on the docket confirming that Brandon Smith should be severed from this action as an improper party. Plaintiff's filing is due no later than 7/24/2026. If necessary, Defendants SHALL reply by 7/31/2026. (Ordered by Chief District Judge Reed O'Connor on 7/14/2026) (twd)
|
| 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 Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. Attorneys are further reminded that, if necessary, they must comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) within 14 days or risk the possible dismissal of this case without prejudice or without further notice. (kxm) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Brandon Smith. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-16611731) 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) State Court Pleading Index, #2 Exhibit(s) State Court Docket Sheet, #3 Exhibit(s) State Court Pleadings, #4 Exhibit(s) State Court Return of Service to Brandon Smith) (Lagow, Drew) |
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
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.
