Hancock v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
| Alexis Victoria Hancock |
| Cincinnati Insurance Company and Shanavia Janine Westbrook |
| 1:2019cv00017 |
| January 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama |
| Jeffrey U Beaverstock |
| P Bradley Murray |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the #3 MOTION to Remand be granted. Objections to R&R due 14 days from the date of service of this document. The #9 MOTION to Strike is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray on 3/13/2019. (tgw) |
| REFERRAL OF #11 Response in Opposition to Motion & #12 Response in Opposition to Motion to Judge Murray. (tgw) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE in Opposition re #9 MOTION to Strike #7 Response filed by Cincinnati Insurance Company. (Hamby, David) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE in Opposition re #3 MOTION to Remand filed by Cincinnati Insurance Company. (Hamby, David) |
| REFERRAL OF #10 Reply to Response to Motion to Judge Murray. (tgw) |
| MOTIONS REFERRED: #9 MOTION to Strike #7 Response - Referred to Judge P. Bradley Murray. (tgw) |
| Filing 10 REPLY to Response to Motion #3 filed by Alexis Victoria Hancock. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Davis, Charles) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Strike #7 Response by Alexis Victoria Hancock. (Davis, Charles) |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Alexis Victoria Hancock. Shanavia Janine Westbrook served on 2/6/2019, answer due 2/27/2019 (Davis, Charles) |
| REFERRAL OF #7 Response to Judge Murray. (tgw) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE to #3 MOTION to Remand filed by Cincinnati Insurance Company. (Hamby, David) |
Filing 6
Order: On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff Alexis Victoria Hancock filed #3 a Motion to Remand requesting that this action be remanded to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and S.D. Ala. Gen. LR 72. Defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company is ORDERED to file its response to Plaintiffs motion on or before January 30, 2019. Plaintiffs reply, if any, must be filed on or before February 6, 2019, at which time the Court will take the motion under submission. Signed by Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray on 1/17/19. (lto)
|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Shanavia Janine Westbrook. Note to Counsel: The Summons have been issued. Please print copies necessary for service. (nah) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Summons by Alexis Victoria Hancock (Davis, Charles) |
| MOTIONS REFERRED: #3 MOTION to Remand - Referred to Judge P. Bradley Murray. (tgw) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Remand by Alexis Victoria Hancock. (Davis, Charles) |
| Filing 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Cincinnati Insurance Company, Shanavia Janine Westbrook, filed by Alexis Victoria Hancock. (Davis, Charles) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Cincinnati Insurance Company from 13th Judicial Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, case number CV-2018-903168. ( Filing fee $ 400, Receipt number 1128-2332955, Online Credit Card Payment.), filed by Cincinnati Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit B to Notice of Removal, #3 Exhibit C to Notice of Removal, #4 Exhibit D to Notice of Removal) (Hamby, David) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/16/2019: #5 Civil Cover Sheet) (nah). |
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 Southern 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.
