Nautilus Insurance Company v. 93 Lounge Inc. et al
| Nautilus Insurance Company |
| 93 Lounge Inc., Charles Amado, Jr., Eileen P. Hughes and Luis Rodriguez |
| 1:2014cv01029 |
| February 18, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| Vera M. Scanlon |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
53
ORDER granting (45) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 1:14-cv-01029-KAM-VMS and in 1:15-cv-00166-KAM-VMS. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. It is declared that the p lain language of the Policy relieves Nautilus of any duty to defend or indemnify 93 Lounge or any other party with respect to the claims in the Underlying Actions. Furthermore, it is declared that Nautilus owes no duty to pay for Mr. Rodriguez' s, Ms. Ashley Encalada's, and Vanessa Encalada's, or any other party's medical expenses associated with the Underlying Actions. Should plaintiff seek to pursue its request for reasonable costs, plaintiff shall submit an application, s upported by documentation as required by the Second Circuit, for reasonable costs within fourteen days of this order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for plaintiff and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/31/2017. (Fletcher, Camille)
|
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 New York Eastern 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.
