Sei Y. Kim v. Truck Insurance Exchange et al
| Sei Y Kim |
| Peerless Insurance Company and Truck Insurance Exchange |
| 2:2014cv04270 |
| June 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Victor B. Kenton |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| 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
91
JUDGMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew, in favor of Peerless Insurance Company, Truck Insurance Exchange and against Sei Y Kim. SEE JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jre)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER re: DEFENDANT TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF SEI Y. KIM TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING 63 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: Defendant Truck has failed to establish a legitimate risk that it will be unable to recover co sts from Plaintiff. Thus, because Truck has not provided the Court with a reasonable basis on which the Court can determine a reasonable bond amount, see GeoTag, 2014 WL at *4-5, and because it has failed to demonstrate the need for the bond, Trucks Motion is hereby DENIED. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER re: DEFENDANT PEERLESS INSURANCE CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 29 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
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.
