Pete Nijjar v. General Star National Insurance Company et al
| Pete Nijjar |
| General Star National Insurance Company, Does and General Star Indemnity Company |
| 2:2012cv08148 |
| September 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jay C. Gandhi |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Insurance |
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
56
JUDGMENT that Plaintiff Nijjar Realty, Inc. take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits and that Defendant General Star Indemnity Company recover its costs. by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc.) Modified on 8/22/2014. (lc).
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER DENYING NIJJAR REALITY INC EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY 41 by Judge George H. King: NRI shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to submit documentation establishing that (1) in moving to have NRI substituted in as Pl aintiff, Mike Nijjar is acting with authorization of NRI as provided in the companys bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors, and (2) NRI is in good standing to be able to sue. If NRI fails to timely and adequately show authorized action on its behalf as required by this Order,this Application will be denied, and this action will be dismissedfor lack of standing by Pete Nijjar at the expiration of the 14 days. (lc) .Modified on 3/26/2014 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF by Judge George H. King: This matter is before us on Plaintiff Pete Nijjar ("Nijjar")'s Motion to Substitute Nijjar Realty, Inc. as Plaintiff for Pete Nijjar. (Docket No. 34.) The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having considered the parties' submissions, we deny the Motion for the following reasons: As explained in our February 28, 2014 Order, Nijjar filed the instant claim against General Star Indemnity Company ("General Star") asserting breach of contract and bad faith claims in relation to a property insurance policy issued by General Star to Nijjar Realty, Inc. ("NRI"). (See Dkt. No. 33.) General Star moved for summary judgment in part on the basis that Nijjar lacks standing to bring this action because he is neither an insured under the policy, nor a valid assignee. (See DKT No.21 at 21.) We agreed with General Star and concluded that Nijjar lack standing to prosecute this action. (See DKT No. 33 at 4.) Pursuant to our February 28, 2014 Order, NRI has until March 21, 2014, which is 21 days from the issuance of the Order, to ratify, join, or substitute into the action. (See DKT No. 33 at 8.) If NRI has not done so by then, the action will be dismissed for Nijjar's lack of standing at that time. (bp)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 21 by Chief Judge George H. King for Judge Dean D Pregerson: NRI shall have 21 days from the date of this Order to ratify, join or be substituted into the action. If this has not occurred, we will gr ant summary judgment against Nijjar for lack of standing as described above at that time. Any purported action by NRI, a corporation, shall fully comply with corporate law relating to any such action by the corporation. In addition, the trial dates are vacated and the Stipulation (DOCKET NUMBER 32)is vacated as moot. (lc). Modified on 2/28/2014 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW EXPERT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 1/23/2014 (lc).
|
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 California Central 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.
