Safety Dynamics, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Company
| 4:2009cv00695 |
| December 11, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Contract: 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
301
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs Objections to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraros 8/8/13 Order, (Doc. 258), are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/24/14.(BAC)
|
|
Filing
158
ORDER granting 133 Motion for Leave to File its Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a) and/or 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granting 137 Defendant's Motion to Strike Request for Jury Trial. Plaintiff i s directed to file a Third Amended Complaint to include all of the allegations and claims identified in the Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's proposed Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/25/13. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)
|
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
| Search for this case: Safety Dynamics, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Company | |
|---|---|
| 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.
