Lazenby v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

Plaintiff: Suzanne Lazenby
Defendant: Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston
Case Number: 2:2013cv00191
Filed: March 27, 2013
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Autauga
Presiding Judge: Wallace Capel
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
October 17, 2013 19 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 8 Motion to Strike is DENIED as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/17/2013. (dmn, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lazenby v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Suzanne Lazenby
Represented By: Miles Clayborn Williams
Represented By: Thomas O'Neal Sinclair
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: Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston
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.