Bartram et al v. State Farm Lloyds et al
| Brad Bartram and Krysten Verner-Bartram |
| State Farm Lloyds and Dale Robert Marek |
| 1:2024cv01482 |
| December 2, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Robert Pitman |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 2
ORDER that the removing party, if it has not already done so, shall within ten (10) days from the date of this order supplement the record with state court pleadings. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (kp)
|
| If ordered by the court, all referrals and consents in this case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell. (kp) |
| Case assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (kp) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Brad Bartram, Krysten Verner-Bartram. (kp) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by State Farm Lloyds (Filing fee $405 receipt number ATXWDC-19531789), filed by State Farm Lloyds. (Attachments: #1 Appendix, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Civil Cover Sheet JS 44, #9 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ramos, Roland) |
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 Western 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.
