Protective Life Insurance Company v. Thompson et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona District Court Protective Life Insurance Company v. Thompson et al

Protective Life Insurance Company v. Thompson et al

Case Number:	3:2006cv01359
Filed:	May 23, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Prescott Division Office
Presiding Judge:	Earl H Carroll
Nature of Suit:	Insurance
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 15, 2008	Filing 116 ORDER denying 106 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 109 Motion to Strike, construed as a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default 23 Clerk's Entry of Default. Plaintiff Bharatkumar J. Kapadia's counsel must send to Defendant James Cze rnics copies of all pleadings, motions, and/or disclosures filed by Plaintiff in this action, pursuant to the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Denying 110 Motion for Reconsideration of Trial Date. The parties may appear at the Final Pret rial Conference telephonically, according to the Court's November 18, 2008 Order (Dkt. 105).Defendants Edith Thompson, James Czernics, and John Czernics and Plaintiff Bharatkumar J. Kapadia shall file any pretrial disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) and the Court's November 18, 2008 Order. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 12/15/08.(DMT, )
September 25, 2008	Filing 96 ORDER denying 66 Kapadia's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 88 Czernics' Motion for Summary Judgment. That Defendant James Hatfields request for summary judgment is denied. A Status Conference will be held on October 9, 2008, at 10:00 A.M. Arizona time. Out-of-state, unrepresented Defendants may appear at the Status Conference telephonically by making prior arrangements with chambers. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 9/24/08. (DMT, )

Date Filed

Document Text

December 15, 2008

Filing 116 ORDER denying 106 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 109 Motion to Strike, construed as a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default 23 Clerk's Entry of Default. Plaintiff Bharatkumar J. Kapadia's counsel must send to Defendant James Cze rnics copies of all pleadings, motions, and/or disclosures filed by Plaintiff in this action, pursuant to the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Denying 110 Motion for Reconsideration of Trial Date. The parties may appear at the Final Pret rial Conference telephonically, according to the Court's November 18, 2008 Order (Dkt. 105).Defendants Edith Thompson, James Czernics, and John Czernics and Plaintiff Bharatkumar J. Kapadia shall file any pretrial disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) and the Court's November 18, 2008 Order. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 12/15/08.(DMT, )

September 25, 2008

Filing 96 ORDER denying 66 Kapadia's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 88 Czernics' Motion for Summary Judgment. That Defendant James Hatfields request for summary judgment is denied. A Status Conference will be held on October 9, 2008, at 10:00 A.M. Arizona time. Out-of-state, unrepresented Defendants may appear at the Status Conference telephonically by making prior arrangements with chambers. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 9/24/08. (DMT, )

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

Search for this case: Protective Life Insurance Company v. Thompson et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?