Cumis Insurance Society Inc v. Merrick Bank Corporation et al
| Cumis Insurance Society Inc |
| Merrick Bank Corporation, Savvis Inc, Savvis Communications Corporation Inc and Does |
| 4:2007cv00374 |
| August 2, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pima |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Personal Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage |
| Defendant |
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
188
ORDER: Cumiss request for a continuance is DENIED; Cumiss request that the Court take judicial notice of specified documents filed in other proceedings is GRANTED; Merricks Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 137 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/8/10.(BAC, )
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims; granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion to Dismiss CaseCumis claims for Negligent Interference with Prospective EconomicAdvantage (First Cause of Action), Negli gent Misrepresentation againstMerrick and Savvis (Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action), Negligence (Sixth Cause of Action), and Conversion/Trespass to Chattel (Seventh Cause of Action) are DISMISSED. Defendants Answer(s) shall be filed within twenty (20) days of this Order.. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 09/18/08.(LMF, )
|
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 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.
