Ernst v. GEICO General Insurance Company

Plaintiff: Ronald R. Ernst
Defendant: GEICO General Insurance Company
Case Number: 0:2013cv00570
Filed: March 13, 2013
Court: Minnesota District Court
County: Hennepin
Referring Judge: Arthur J. Boylan
Presiding Judge: Ann D. Montgomery
Nature of Suit: Insurance

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
July 10, 2013 12 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 3 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; all claims in the Complaint 1 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 07/10/2013. (TLU) cc: Ronald R. Ernst on 7/10/2013 (MMP).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ernst v. GEICO General Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ronald R. Ernst
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GEICO General Insurance Company
Represented By: John R Crawford
Represented By: Benjamin A Johnson
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.