Gentry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
| Robert D Gentry |
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company |
| 2:2009cv00671 |
| March 11, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Insurance Office |
| Sacramento |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| Lawrence K. Karlton |
| Both |
| Diversity |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
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
115
STIPULATION and ORDER 114 , signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/10/11, ORDERING this case DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/3/2010 ORDERING this matter has settled. The parties voluntarily agree to settle this action for $25,000.00. The parties agree that a dismissal document dismissing this action with prejudice shall be filed no later than 1/3/2011.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 07/26/10 ORDERING that dft's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in its entirety. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/13/10 ORDERING the scheduling order is AMENDED as follows: the Final Pretrial Conference SET for 9/7/2010 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; the trial is estimated for 7 days and is SET for 12/7/10. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/21/10 ORDERING the final pretrial conference and the trial are VACATED; a status Conference is SET for 7/12/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/15/2010 ORDERING 31 Pltf shall file a sur-reply to dft's motion in the manner described on or before 6/28/2010; dft may file a response to pltf's sur-reply on or before 7/6/2010; Dft&# 039;s 33 motion for summary judgment, shall be CONTINUED to 7/12/2010 at 10:00 AM. Counsel for pltf is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by 6/29/2010 why sanctions in the amount of $250, as permitted by Local Rule 110, should not issue for his failure to comply with the FRCP 56 and the Federal Rules of Evidence in his opposition to dft's motion for summary judgment; Alternatively, counsel for pltf may pay the sanction of $250 to the Clerk of Court by 6/29/2010; If counsel elects to do so, he must contemporaneously file an affidavit accompanying the payment of the sanction which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or costs. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/8/10 ORDERING pltf's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order 49 is GRANTED; counsel for pltf is SANCTIONED to pay dft's attorneys fees in preparing its reply brief to the summary judgment motion 44 , in preparing its opposition to plf's motion to amend the complaint 52 , and for its counsel's attendance at the 6/7/10 hearing on the motion to amend; dft is ORDERED to file within 7 days of this order an affidavit stating th e attorney's fee incurred; the court shall issue a further order concerning the amount of fees pltf's counsel shall pay to dft; counsel for dft is FURTHER SANCTIONED in the amount of $250.00 to be paid to the clerk of court no later than 30 days from the date of this order; dft may file a sur-reply to its motion for summary judgment 31 on or before 6/14/10; dft's motion for summary judgment 31 shall be heard on 6/21/10 at 10:00 AM.(Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 04/01/10 ORDERING plf to file a motion to amend the scheduling order w/i 14 days. This motion should also indicate whether plf believes that discovery and/or law and motion should be reopened, and if so, for how long. Dft shall file an opposition to this motion w/i 14 of service of plf's motion. This opposition shall also indicate whether dft believes that discovery and/or law and motion should be reopened, and if so, for how long. The hearing on dft's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment is VACATED. A new hearing date will be set after the court resolves plf's motion to amend the scheduling order. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/3/2009 DENYING 10 Motion to Disqualify. (Matson, R)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern 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: Gentry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Robert D Gentry | |
| Represented By: | Colleen Frances Van Egmond |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Stephen M. Hayes |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
