Wegrzyn v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Elana Wegrzyn
Case Number: 2:2010cv01452
Filed: August 26, 2010
Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office
Referring Judge: Lawrence R. Leavitt
Presiding Judge: Edward C. Reed
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
May 17, 2012 26 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that parties are directed to file a status report on this action by 5/30/2012. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 5/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Wegrzyn v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Represented By: Robert W Freeman, Jr.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Elana Wegrzyn
Represented By: Roger M Cram
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.